-•^-»a 


:y 


//J/ 


LIBR  A.R^5r 


Theological    Seminary 

PRINCETON,    N.  J. 

Shelf       ((Cf^^^cx. 

No, 


ilfctibeb 


iZ^'Z^ 


>Tt7/^^^,  \\ 


/^ 


\K 


k.\ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/memoirsofprotest01whit 


MEMOIRS 


OF  THE 


PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


IN  THE 


UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA. 


MEMOIRS 


PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA. 


CONTAINING, 

I.    A  NARRATIVE  OF    THE  ORGANIZATION  AND  OF  THE    EARLT 
MEASURES  OF  THE   CHURCH. 
II.    ADDITIONAL  STATEMENTS  AND  REMARKS.  • 
III.   AN  APPENDIX  OF  ORIGINAL  PAPERS. 


BY  WM.  WHITE,  I).D. 

BISHOP  OF  THE  PROTESTANT    CHURCH  IN  THE  COMMONWEALTH 
OF    PENNSYLVANIA. 


PHILADELPHIA: 
PUBLISHED  BY  S.  POTTER  &  CO.  NO.  bb,  CHESNUT  ST. 

J.  MAXWELL,  PRINTER. 

18^0. 


EASTERN  DISTRICT  OF  PENNSYLVANIA,  to  wit: 

BE  IT  REMEMBERED,  that  on  the  28th  day  of  April,  in  the  forty- 
fourth  year  of  the  Independence  of  the  United  States  of  America,  A.  D. 
1820,  S.  Potter,  &  Co.,  of  the  said  district,  have  deposited  in  this  office 
the  title  of  a  book,  the  right  whereof  they  claim  as  proprietors,  iu  the  words 
foUowing,  to  wit: 

"  Memoirs  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church  in  the  United  States  of  Ame- 
rica. Containing',  1st.  A  Narrative  of  the  Org-anization  and  of  the  ear- 
ly measures  of  the  Church.  2dly.  Additional  statements  and  remarks. 
3dly.  An  Appendix  of  Original  Papers  By  Wm.  White,  D.  D.  Bishop 
of  the  Protestant  church  in  the  Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania." 

In  conformity  to  the  Act  of  Cong'ress  of  the  United  States,  entitled,  "  An 
act  for  the  encouragement  of  learning,  by  securing  the  copies  of  maps, 
charts,  and  books,  to  the  authors  and  proprietors  of  such  copies,  during 
the  times  therein  mentioned,"  and  also  to  the  act  entitled  "  An  act  sup- 
plementary to  an  act  entitled,  an  act  for  the  encouragement  of  learning, 
by  securing  the  copies  of  maps,  charts,  and  books,  to  the  authors  and  pro- 
prietors of  such  copies,  duringthetimes  therein  mentioned,"  and  extending 
the  benefits  thereof  to  the  arts  of  designing,  engraving,  and  etching  histo- 
rical and  other  prints. 

DAVID  CALDWELL, 
Clerk  of  the  Eastern  District  (^Pennsylvania. 


J 


DEDICATION. 


TO  THE 


BISHOPS 


PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH. 

My  much  esteemed  brethren, 

The  motive  to  the  prefixing  of  a  dedication  to 
these  memoirs,  is  the  opportunity  thus  afforded  of 
testifying  to  the  church  at  large,  the  harmony  which 
has  subsisted  among  us  in  our  joint  counsels  for  the 
conducting  of  our  ecclesiastical  concerns.  Ifj  at  any 
time  there  has  been  a  shade  of  difference  of  opinion, 
it  has  been  overbalanced  by  the  pleasure  of  mutual 
concession,  and  by  the  profit  of  amicable  discussion. 

All  of  you  have  been  ordained  to  the  Episcopacy 
by  my  hands.  Submission  of  opinion  on  this  account, 
is  what  I  have  never  had  the  arrogancy  to  claim: 
but  if  any  degree  of  personal  respect  should  be  sup- 
posed a  natural  consequence,  I  can  thankfully  ac- 
knowledge, that  it  has  been  bestowed. 

Having  lived  in  days  in  which  there  existed  pre- 
judices in  our  land  against  the  name,  and  much 


VI 

more  against  the  office  of  a  bishop;  and  when  it  was 
doubtful,  whether  any  person  in  that  character 
would  be  tolerated  in  the  community;  I  now  con- 
template nine  of  our  number,  conducting  the  duties 
of  their  office  without  interruption;  and  in  regard 
not  to  them  only,  but  to  ten  of  us  who  have  gone  to 
their  rest,  I  trust  the  appeal  may  be  made  to  the 
world,  for  their  not  being  chargeable  with  causes  of 
offence  to  our  fellow  Christians  and  our  fellow  citi- 
zens generally,  or  with  the  assuming  of  any  powers 
within  our  communion,  not  confessedly  recognised 
by  our  Ecclesiastical  institutions. 

Being  your  senior  by  many  years,  I  enjoy  satis- 
faction in  the  expectation  of  the  good  which  you 
may  be  expected  to  be  achieving,  in  what  is  now  our 
common  sphere  of  action,  when  I  shall  be  removed 
from  it:  and,  with  my  prayers  for  the  success  of  your 
endeavours  to  this  effect,  I  subscribe  myself  your  af- 
fectionate brother, 

THE  AUTHOR. 


PREFACE. 


Many  years  3*50,  the  author  of  the  following  work 
began  to  commit  to  writing  the  most  material  facts 
which  had  occurred,  relative  to  the  church  of  which 
he  is  a  minister:  intending,  in  the  event  of  the  con- 
tinuance of  life  and  health,  to  carry  on  the  recital. 
This  was  not  with  a  view  to  early  publication,  be- 
cause of  the  small  extent  of  the  sphere,  in  which  the 
detail  of  very  recent  events  was  likely  to  interest  curi- 
osity. Accordingly,  what  was  thus  prepared  laid 
unnoticed,  until  an  application  was  made  about  twelve 
years  ago,  by  the  editor  of  the  American  edition  of 
Dr.  Rees^s  Cyclopedia,  requesting  attention  to  cer- 
tain parts  of  that  work,  with  a  view  to  other  objects. 
On  this  occasion  it  occurred,  that  there  might  be  pro- 
priety and  use  in  inserting,  in  a  work  of  that  kind, 
a  brief  account  of  what  had  been  transacted  during 
some  years  preceding,  within  the  Episcopal  church. 
For  this  reason,  there  was  made  a  draft  from  the 
notes  before  taken,  for  the  purpose  stated.  As  what 
remained  comprehended  sundry  matters,  not  of  suf- 


VIU 

ficiently  general  concern  for  insertion  in  the  Cyclo- 
pedia; it  was  afterwards  reviewed  under  the  impres- 
sion that  the  time  might  come,  when  the  former  la- 
bour would  not  be  unacceptable,  within  the  com- 
munion for  which  it  had  been  designed.  In  the  pre- 
sent publication,  the  narrative  has  been  continued 
to  the  present  time.  With  it,  there  are  given  the 
matters  kept  back  from  the  publication  in  the  Cy- 
clopedia; and  a  continuation  of  similar  statements 
and  remarks. 

It  has  been  occasionally  suggested,  from  a 
knowledge  of  the  materials  in  the  hands  of  the  au- 
thor, and  in  consideration  of  the  opportunities  which 
he  has  possessed  of  personal  observation  of  charac- 
ters and  of  facts,  that  it  would  be  better  to  embody 
the  narrative  with  the  remarks,  and  to  make  a  his- 
tory of  the  whole.  The  mere  melting  of  them  into 
one  mass,  after  the  separation  of  them  as  related 
above,  did  not  seem  likely  to  be  fruitful  of  any  con- 
♦siderable  advantage:  and  as  to  the  name  of  "a  histo- 
ry," it  would  not  only  be  disproportioned  to  the 
work,  but  perhaps  pledge  to  an  attempt,  beyond 
what  there  are  materials  to  accomplish.  Of  mate- 
rials concerning  the  aggregate  church,  the  author 
possesses  all  that  are  necessary,  and  more  than  will 
be  here  given;  the  view  being  confined  to  the  more 


important:  but  his  collections  in  regard  to  the  church 
in  the  different  dioceses,  are  perhaps  incomplete,  al- 
though he  is  furnished  with  almost  all  their  journals, 
and  thinks  himself  well  informed  as  to  all  the  mate- 
rial events  which  have  occurred,  for  half  a  century 
backward.  Besides,  there  are  a  few  points  on  which 
he  wished  to  retain  a  liberty,  that  would  be  incon- 
sistent with  the  fulness,  and,  considering  what  is  to 
be  expected  in  such  a  w^ork,  the  fidehty  of  a  history. 
One  of  these  points  is,  that  he  chooses  to  be  silent 
in  regard  to  a  few  transactions,  which,  although  suf- 
ficiently known  and  discoursed  of  when  they  hap- 
pened, are  not  of  so  much  importance  to  the  future 
concerns  of  the  church,  as  to  induce  a  wish  to  per- 
petuate the  remembrance  of  them;  and  thereby  the 
personal  irritation  by  which  they  were  accompanied. 
Besides  these  reasons,  there  is  one  arising  from 
the  desire  of  avoiding  such  a  development  of  the  cha- 
racters of  agents,  as  might  induce  the  relating  and 
the  unintentional  misstating  of  what  may  have  pas- 
sed in  unguarded  conversation.  It  is  an  unfair  ad- 
vantage taken  of  a  deceased  character,  for  an  author 
to  represent  him  as  his  own  prejudices  or  his  pas- 
sions dictate;  when,  perhaps,  the  other  party  would 
have  had  the  precaution  to  make  his  own  story 

B 


known,  had  he  foreseen  such  a  result  of  the  freedom 
of  social  intercourse. 

Another  license  which  has  grown  out  of  the 
adopted  plan,  is  the  anticipating  of  some  circumstan- 
ces which  took  place  in  England,  during  the  inter- 
course with  his  grace  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury; 
when  such  anticipation  might  illustrate  any  matter 
previously  under  review.  The  motive,  was  the  de- 
sire to  record  the  said  intercourse  in  the  form  in 
which  it  now  appears,  that  is,  in  letters  to  the  com- 
mittee of  the  church  in  Pennsylvania:  which,  having 
been  written  when  the  matters  related  were  fresh 
on  the  mind  of  the  narrator,  is  the  more  likely  to 
be  a  faithful  exhibition  of  them.  To  have  enlarged 
the  letters,  would  have  been  incorrect;  and  yet,  in 
what  passed  in  the  intercourse,  there  was  such  con* 
nexion  with  some  points  in  an  earlier  part  of  the 
work,  as  was  too  material  to  be  disregarded.  Al- 
though there  has  not  been  an  enlargement  of  the 
letters,  nor  an  alteration  of  them  in  any  instance, 
there  have  been  attached  to  them  a  few  notes,  con- 
taining matters  of  less  moment. 

The  motive  of  the  author  in  the  statements,  is 
principally  to  record  facts,  which  may  otherwise  be 
swept  into  oblivion  by  the  lapse  of  time.  For  the 
mixing  of  his  opinions  with  the  facts,  a  reason  may 


XI 

be  thought  due.  It  is,  that  the  habits  of  his  hfe  hav- 
ing exercised  him  much,  on  subjects  which  have 
bearings  on  the  concerns  of  the  church  in  doctrine, 
in  discipHne,  and  in  worship;  and  his  principles  hav- 
ing been  formed  with  dehberation  and  acted  on  with 
perseverance,  not  without  prayer  to  the  Father  of 
lights  for  his  holy  guidance;  there  seems  to  him 
nothing  unreasonable  in  the  wish,  to  give  the  weight 
of  long  observation,  to  what  are  truth  and  order  in 
his  esteem.     He  has  not  the  presumption  to  aspire 
to,  nor  the  vanity  to  expect  to  share  in  the  direction 
of  the  concerns  of  the  church,  after  the  very  few 
years,  in  which  there  will  be  a  possibility  of  his  be- 
ing present  in  her  councils:  but  he  commits  his  opi- 
nions, to  the  issue  of  what  may  be  thought  in  reason 
due  to  them. 

On  the  author's  review  of  his  statements  and  re- 
marks, he  had  often  a  painful  sensation  at  the  fre- 
quent prominence  in  them  of  himself  In  the  way 
of  apology,  let  it  be  remarked,  1st,  that  the  apparent 
fault  is  in  a  great  degree  inseparable  from  the  deli- 
very of  the  results  of  personal  observation;  and  2dly, 
that  he  has  had  more  agency  than  any  other  person, 
in  the  transactions  recorded:  owing  to  the  circum- 
stances in  which  he  was  placed;  to  a  cause  for 
which  he  cannot  be  sufficiently  thankful,  the  con- 


Xll 

tinuance  of  his  health  and  strength;  and  to  his  hav- 
ing attended  every  general  convention,  from  the  be- 
ginning to  the  present  time.  Under  the  weight  of 
these  considerations,  he  commits  himself  to  the  can- 
dour of  the  reader. 

Of  the  papers  in  the  Appendix,  a  great  propor- 
tion are  what  may  be  read  in  the  printed  journals: 
but  they  were  thought  necessary  to  the  series  of  the 
events  presented.  Those  papers  which  were  in  the 
private  possession  of  the  author,  and  were  designed 
to  have  an  influence  on  the  concerns  of  the  church, 
he  has  thought  it  due  to  the  object  of  this  work,  to 
pei^etuate.  The  printing  of  any  document  which 
took  the  shape  of  a  canon,  has  been  judged  unne- 
cessary. 

In  regard  to  letters,  let  it  be  noticed,  that  there 
are  none  besides  those,  which  like  the  papers  above 
referred  to,  were  designed  to  have  pubhc  influence. 
In  private  letters,  there  is  much  to  confirm  the  state- 
ments made,  and  to  enlarge  them,  if  that  were  the 
design. 


CONTENTS. 


The  capital  letters  A,  B,  C,  ^'c,  at  the  ends  of  certain  para- 
graphs in  the  narrative,  refer  to  corresponding  places  in  the 
additional  statements  and  remarks. 

1.    NARRATIVE,  &c. 

State  of  the  church  before  the  revolutionary  war,  and  at  the 
conclusion  of  it,  p.  3 — Intercourse  with  Denmark,  p.  9— 
A  meetine,  in  New  Brunswick,  N.  J.  p.  10 — A  meeting  in 
New  York,  p.  11— Convention  of  1785,  p.  12— of  1786,  p. 
18 — Consecration  of  bisl.ops  White  and  Provoost,  p.  20 — 
Convention  of  1789,  p.  21— of  1792,  p.  24— of  1795,  p.  25-— 
of  1799,  p.  26— of  1801,  p.  27— of  1804,  p.  29— of  1808,  p. 
SO— of  1811,  p.  31— of  1814,  p.  34— of  1817,  p.  39. 

2.  ADDITIONAL  STATEMENTS  AND  REMARKS. 

A.  Question  of  Episcopacy  in  the  Colonies,  p.  47 — B.  Question 
of  the  use  of  the  Liturgy,  p.  59 — C.  Of  the  meeting  in  New 
Brun9wick,inMay  1784,p.  62 — D.Of  the  meeting  in  N.York, 
in  October  1784,  p.  64 — E.  Of  preparatory  proceedings  in 
sundry  states,  p.  68 — F.  Of  the  General  Convention  in  Phi- 
ladelphia, in  September  and  October  1785,  p.  92 — Section  1. 
Of  the  general  ecclesiastical  Constitution,  p.  92 — Section  2. 
Of  the  measures  taken  to  obtain  the  Episcopacy,  p.  97 — 
Section  3.  Of  the  alteration  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer, 
p.  102 — Section  4.  Of  relative  measures  and  events,  p.  Ill 
— Section  5.  Of  subsequent  proceedings  of  local  conven- 
tions, p.  117— G.  Of  the  convention  in  Philadelphia  and 
"Wilmington  in  1786,  p.  122 — H.  Of  personal  intercourse 
with  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  p.  138 — I.  Of  the  gene- 
ral convention  in  1789,  p.  164— K,  iu  1792,  p.  198— L.  in 


XIV 

1795,  p.  215— M.  in  1799,  p.  223— N.  in  1801,  p.  228—0. 
in  1804,  p.  242— P.  in  1808,  p.  249— Q.  in  1811,  p.  277— 
R.  in  1814,  p.  289— S.  in  1817,  p.  302. 

3.  APPENDIX. 

No.  1.  Communication  with  Denmark — No.  2.  Application  t© 
the  archbishop  of  York — No.  3.  Communication  from  Con- 
necticut— No.  4.  Letter  of  bishop  Seabury — No.  5.  First  ad- 
dress to  the  English  prelates — No^  6.  Letter  of  the  English 
prelates — No.  7.  Memorial  from  the  convention  of  New 
Jersey — No.  8.  Second  address  to  the  English  Prelates — 
No.  9.  Letter  of  the  archbishops  of  Canterbury  and  York — 
No.  10.  Letter  of  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  with  Act  of 
Parliament,  &c. — ^No.  11.  Address  to  the  archbishops  of  Can- 
terbury and  York — No.  12.  Letter  and  extracts  of  Letters 
to  Granville  Sharp,  Esq. — No.  13.  Act  of  General  Conven- 
tion of  October  1786 — No.  14.  Instrument  of  Consecration — 
No.  15.  Note  of  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury — No.  16. 
Letters  from  the  president  of  Congress,  (Richard  H.  Lee, 
Esq.)  and  the  minister  at  the  court  of  the  United  States, 
(John  Adams,  Esq.)  and  from  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury 
to  Mr.  Adams:  also  certificates  from  the  executive  of  Penn- 
sylvania and  Virginia — No.  17.  Letter  of  Richard  Peters, 
Esq. — No.  18.  Application  from  Massachusetts — No.  19. 
Resolves  and  address  to  the  archbishop — No.  20.  Constitu- 
tion as  acceeded  to,  with  instrument  of  the  consecration  of 
bishop  Seabury — ^No.  21.  Letter  of  Dr.  Coke — No.  22.  Tes- 
timonial of  the  Rev.  Charles  Pettigrew — No.  23.  Circular 
of  a  committee  in  South  Carolina — No.  24.  Letter  of  bishop 
Provoost,  and  the  determination  of  the  bishops — No.  25. 
Forms  of  subscription — No.  26.  Decision  of  the  bishops,  on 
the  case  of  Ammi  Rogers — No.  27.  Concerning  the  Homi- 
lies— No.  28.  Concerning  posture  in  psalmody — No.  29. 
Concerning  proposed  anthems — No.  30.  Concerning  the 
identity  of  this  church — ^No.  31.  Concerning  certain  amuse- 
ments— No.  32.  Acts  of  the  Convention  of  1785. 


ERRATA. 

Page  12. 1.  13. 

for  Long 

lead  Stateu. 

23,1.    7. 

Maddison, 

Madison. 

52, 1.  21. 

Protestors, 

Protesters. 

121, 1.  from  b.  6. 

free. 

few. 

171,  Note, 

cession, 

session. 

184, 1.  from  b.  5. 

prevented, 

prevent. 

187, 1.  12. 

no. 

not. 

229, 1.  from  b.  2. 

worst. 

worse. 

290, 1.  from  b.  6. 

may  life, 

life  may. 

298, 1.  12. 

dele  what. 

299, 1.  from  b.  2. 

their. 

there. 

307, 1.  18. 

those. 

these. 

The  reference  to  the  document  respecting 

the  court  of  Den- 

mark,  at  the  bottom  of 

p.  61,  should  have  been  on  p.  64,  after 

Kne  14. 

1.  A  NARRATIVE  OF  THE  ORGANIZATION 


AND    OF   THE 


EARLY  MEASURES 


OF   THE 


PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH. 


A  NARRATIVE,  &c. 


Although  it  happened,  as  might  be  expected, 
that  a  proportion  of  the  settlers  of  EngHsh  America 
were  of  the  profession  estabhshed  in  England;  yet  the 
number  was  not  so  considerable,  as  might  be  sup- 
posed from  the  existing  relation;  owing  probably  to 
the  circumstance,  that  several  of  the  colonies  arose 
in  a  great  measure  from  dissatisfaction  with  the 
establishment  at  home,  and  partly  to  an  influx  of 
subsequent  settlers;  not  only  from  other  countries, 
subject  to  the  same  crown,  but  also  from  countries 
on  the  continent  of  Europe;  principally  some  of  the 
states  of  Germany.  In  the  northern  and  eastern 
states,  the  comparatively  small  number  of  the  church 
of  England  may  be  seen  in  the  fact,  that  when  the 
revolutionary  war  began ,  there  were  not  more  than 
about  eighty  parochial  clergymen  of  that  church,  to 
the  northward  and  to  the  eastward  of  Maryland;  and 
that  those  clergymen  derived  the  greater  part  of 
their  subsistence  from  the  society  instituted  in  Eng- 
land, for  the  propagation  of  the  gospel  in  foreign 


4 

parts;  with  the  exception  of  those  resident  in  the 
towns  of  Boston  and  Newport,  and  the  cities  of  New 
York  and  Philadelphia:  there  being  no  episcopal 
congregations  out  of  those  towns  and  cities,  held  to 
be  of  ability  to  support  clergymen  of  themselves* 
In  Maryland  and  in  Virginia,  the  episcopal  church 
was  much  more  numerous,  and  had  legal  establish- 
ments for  its  support.  It  was  especially  numerous 
in  those  parts  of  the  said  provinces,  which  were  set- 
tled when  the  establishments  took  place;  for  in  the 
more  recently  settled  counties,  the  mass  of  the  peo- 
ple were  of  other  communions,  scarcely  known 
among  them  in  the  early  period  of  their  histories.  In 
the  more  southern  colonies,  the  episcopalians  were 
fewer  in  proportion  than  in  the  two  last  mentioned; 
but  more  than  in  the  northern. 

It  may  be  supposed,  that,  however  comparatively 
few  the  original  emigrants  of  the  church  of  England 
in  the  northern  and  the  middle  colonies;  yet  they 
must  have  derived  aid  from  the  executive  of  the  pa- 
rent state,  through  the  medium  of  its  representa- 
tives, the  governors.  This  was,  indeed,  the  case  in 
a  degree;  but  the  aid  was  inconsiderable  and,  con- 
fined to  two  or  three  of  the  earliest  seats  of  popula- 
tion. Besides,  it  may  well  be  doubted,  whether,  un- 
der the  continually  existing  jealousy  in  the  colonies 
of  the  parent  power,  there  did  not  result  some  dis- 

*  The  clergy  in  the  province  of  Pennsylvania,  exclusive  of 
those  in  the  citj  of  Philadelphia,  were  never  more  than  six  in 
nunibci';  all  of  whom  were  missionaries,  receiving  salaries  from 
England.    The  parochial  clergy  of  the  city  were  four. 


advantage  to  a  denomination  comparatively  small, 
from  a  commnnity  of  profession:  for  this  circum- 
stance may  have  had  a  tendency  to  render  the  de- 
nomination unpopular  among  a  great  proportion  of 
their  fellow-citizens;  especially  under  the  apprehen- 
sion that  it  might;,  at  some  future  day,  be  an  engine 
aiding  in  the  intj'oduction  of  a  new  system  of  colo- 
nial government.*' 

But  even  if  the  episcopal  church  found  any 
source  of  increase  in  the  connexion,  this  was  more 
than  counterbalanced  by  the  peculiar  circumstances 
under  which  it  existed;  which  prevented  and  proba- 
bly, under  the  old  regime,  would  have  continued  to 
prevent  its  organization.  Separated  by  the  Atlantic 
ocean  from  the  episcopacy  under  which  it  had  been 
planted,  it  had  no  resource  for  a  ministry,  but  in 
emigration  from  the  mother  country  and  by  sending 
its  candidates  for  the  ministry,  to  that  country  for 
orders.  The  first,  could  not  be  the  channel  of  a  re- 
spectable permanent  supply.  And  tlie  second,  which 
was  the  most  depended  on  in  the  latter  years  of  the 
colonies,  was  very  troublesome  and  expensive.  The 
evil  of  the  want  of  an  internal  episcopacy,  did  not 
end  here.  For  altiiough  the  bisliop  of  London  was 
considered  as  the  diocesan  of  the  episcopal  churches 
in  America,  it  is  evident,  that  his  authority  could 
not  be  effectually  exerted,  at  such  a  distance  for  the 

*  Perhaps  the  only  considerable  endowment  by  the  English 
government  was  of  lands  to  Trinity  church,  New  York.  Its 
being  considerable,  is  owing  to  its  liaving  become  of  great  value 
by  tlie  increase  of  that  city. 


6 

removing  of  unworthy  clergymen:  besides  which, 
there  were  civil  institutions  supposed  to  be  in  oppo- 
sition to  it,  in  the  provinces  where  establishments 
had  been  provided.  In  Maryland,  in  particular,  all 
interference  of  the  bishop  of  London,  except  in  the 
single  matter  of  ordination,  was  held  by  the  proprie- 
tary government  to  be  an  encroachment  on  its  au- 
thorities.* 

For  these  reasons,  and  on  the  ground  of  the  evi- 
dent propriety  of  being  supplied  with  all  the  orders 
of  the  ministry,  recognized  by  their  ecclesiastical 
system,  application  had  been  made  to  England  at 
different  times  by  the  clergy,  especially  those  in  the 
northern  colonies,  for  the  obtaining  of  an  episcopate. 
These  applications  had  produced  much  contention 
in  pamphlets  and  in  newspapers;  the  writers  on  the 
episcopal  side  pleading  the  reasonableness  of  being 

*  The  author,  before  his  being  in  the  ministry,  knew  a  gen- 
tleman (the  reverend  Mr.  Edminston)  who,  being  in  London  for 
orders,  had  brought  with  him  such  recommendations  to  lord 
Baltimore,  proprietary  of  Maryland,  as  induced  the  promise  of 
an  order  to  his  governor,  for  any  future  parish  that  might  be 
vacant.  It  was  necessary  after  ordination,  to  show  the  testimo- 
nial of  the  transaction  to  the  proprietary:  who,  perceiving  with 
the  instrument  a  license  to  preach  in  the  province  of  Maryland, 
was  much  dissatisfied  with  the  bishop  of  London  on  that  ac- 
count. The  bishop  usually  gave  such  a  license,  according  to  the 
province  for  which  the  party  was  ordained:  a  practice,  similai-  to 
what  obtains  in  England.  From  this  and  from  other  circumstan- 
ces, the  conviction  is  felt,  that  his  lordship  would  not  have  en- 
dured in  his  province  any  episcopal  authority,  distinct  from  his 
designation  of  the  person.  It  is  mentioned,  as  one  of  the  diffi- 
culties attendant  on  the  subject  of  an  American  episcopacy. 


indulged  in  the  full  enjoyment  of  their  religion;  and 
their  opponents  objecting,  that  bishops,  sent  from 
England  to  America,  would  of  course  bring  with 
them,  or,  if  not,  might  be  clothed  by  the  paramount 
authority  of  Britain,  with  the  powers  of  English 
bishops,  to  the  great  prejudice  of  people  of  other 
communions;  and  in  contrariety  to  the  principles  on 
which  the  settlement  of  the  colonies  had  taken  place. 
What  would  have  been  the  event,  in  this  respect,  had 
the  episcopal  clergy  succeeded  in  their  desires,  is  a 
problem,  which  it  will  be  forever  impossible  to  solve. 
In  regard  to  the  motives  of  the  parties  in  the  dispute, 
there  are  circumstances,  which  charity  may  apply 
to  the  most  favourable  interpretation.  As  the  epis- 
copal clergy  disclaimed  the  designs  and  the  expec- 
tations of  which  they  were  accused;  and  as  the  same 
was  done  by  their  advocates  on  the  other  side  of  the 
water,  particularly  by  the  principal  of  them,  the 
great  and  good  archbishop  Seeker;  they  ought  to  be 
supposed  to  have  had  in  view  an  episcopacy  purely 
religious.  On  the  other  hand,  as  their  opponents 
laid  aside  their  resistance  of  the  religious  part  of  it, 
as  soon  as  American  independence  had  done  away 
all  pohtical  danger,  if  it  before  existed;  it  ought  to 
be  believed,  that  in  their  former  professed  apprehen- 
sions, they  were  sincere.  A. 

If  such  was  the  difficulty  of  being  supplied  with 
a  ministry,  during  the  acknowledged  supremacy  of 
the  British  crown;  much  greater,  as  may  be  suppo- 
sed, was  the  same  difficulty,  during  the  struggle 
which  ended  in  the  elevating  of  the  colonies  to  the 


8 

rank  of  independent  states.  During  that  term,  there 
was  no  resource  for  the  supply  of  vacancies;  which 
were  continually  multiplying,  not  only  from  death, 
but  by  the  retreat  of  very  many  of  the  episcopal 
clergy  to  the  mother  country,  and  to  the  colonies  still 
dependent  on  her.  To  add  to  the  evil,  many  able  and 
worthy  ministers,  cherishing  their  allegiance  to  the 
king  of  Great  Britain,  and  entertaining  conscientious 
scruples  against  the  use  of  the  liturgy,  under  the  re- 
striction of  omitting  the  appointed  prayers  for  him, 
ceased  to  officiate.  Owing  to  these  circumstances, 
the  doors  of  the  far  greater  number  of  the  episcopal 
churches  were  closed  for  several  years.  In  the  state 
in  which  this  work  is  edited,  there  was  a  part  of  that 
time,  in  which  there  was,  through  its  whole  extent, 
but  one  resident  minister  of  the  church  in  question, 
he  who  records  the  fact.  B. 

No  sooner  was  it  known  in  America,  that  Great 
Britain  had  acknowledged  her  independence,  than 
a  few  young  gentlemen  to  the  southward,  who  had 
been  educated  for  the  ministry,  but  kept  back  from 
it  by  the  times,  embarked  for  England;  and  applied 
to  the  then  bishop  of  London,  Dr.  Lovvth,  for  orders. 
As  the  bishop  could  not  ordain  them,  without  re- 
quiring of  them  engagements  inconsistent  with  their 
allegiance  to  the  American  sovereignty,  he  applied 
for  and  obtained  an  act  of  parliament,  allowing  him 
to  dispense  with  requisitions  of  that  sort.  While 
this  matter  was  depending,  and  the  success  of  the 
candidates  was  doubtful,  there  was  an  incident,  which 


it  may  be  proper  to  record,  in  justice  to  the  intended 
good  ollices  of  a  foreign  sister  church. 

Mr.  Adams,  then  the  minister  of  the  United 
States  at  tlie  court  of  St.  James,  being  in  company 
with  M.  de  St.  Saphorin  the  minister  of  the  crown 
of  Denmark,  mentioned  to  him  the  case  here  stated, 
of  the  candidates  for  orders;  with  a  view  to  his  opin- 
ion, whether  they  could  be  gratified  in  the  kingdom 
which  he  represented,  Souietime  alter,  the  Danish 
minister  made  a  communication  to  the  American; 
from  which  it  appeared,  that  the  inquiry  of  the  latter 
had  been  notified  to  the  Danish  court;  that  the  con- 
sequence had  been  a  reference  to  the  theological 
faculty  of  the  kingdom;  and  that  they  had  declared 
their  readiness  to  ordain  candidates  from  America, 
on  the  condition  of  their  signing  of  the  39  Articles 
of  the  church  of  England,  with  the  exception  of  the 
political  parts  of  them;  the  service  to  be  performed 
in  Latin,  in  accommodation  to  the  candidates,  who 
might  be  supposed  unacquainted  with  the  language 
of  the  country.  This  conduct,  is  here  the  more  cheer- 
fully mentioned  to  the  honour  of  the  Danish  church; 
as  it  is  reasonable  to  presume,  that  there  would  have 
been  an  equal  readiness  to  the  conseciating  of 
bishops,  bad  necessity  required  a  recourse  for  it  to 
any  other  source  than  the  English  Episcopacy,  under 
which  the  American  churches  had  been  planted. 
The  proceeding  in  Denmark,  was  made  known  to 
the  x\merican  government  by  Mr.  Adams;  a  copy 
of  whose  letter  to  the  president  of  congress,  was 
sent  to  the  author  by  the  then  supreme  executive 

B 


10 

council  of  Pennsylvania.  Mr.  Adams  stated,  that  the 
transaction  arose  from  his  having  been  applied  to  by 
an  American  gentleman,  in  behalf  of  the  candidates 
for  ordination  referred  to.  Mr.  Adams  mentioned  the 
matter  to  M.  de  St,  Saphorin,  the  Danish  minister; 
who  accordingly  wrote  to  the  count  de  Rosencrone, 
privy  counsellor  and  secretary  of  state  to  the  king  of 
Denmark.   The  result  was  as  above  given. 

In  truth,  there  was  no  idea  of  having  recourse,  in 
the  first  instance,  to  any  other  quarter  than  that  of 
the  Enghsh  Episcopacy,  in  the  minds  of  those  who 
had  begun  to  direct  their  attention  to  the  supply  of 
the  present  and  the  future  exigencies  of  the  church- 
es.   But  it  seemed  to  those  at  least  who  took  up  the 
subject  in  the  middle  states,  that  nothing  could  be 
done  to  effect,  without  some  association,  under  which 
the  churches  might  act  as  a  body:  they  having  been 
heretofore  detached  from  and  independent  on  one 
another;  excepting  the  bond  of  union  which  had  sub- 
sisted through  the  medium  of  the  bishop  of  London. 
That  medium  of  connexion,  had  been  confessedly 
destroyed  by  the  revolution:  and  therefore  it  was 
evident,  that  without  the  creating  of  some  new  tie, 
the  churches  in  the  different  states,  and  even  those 
in  the  same  state  might  adopt  such  var>ing  me 
sures,  as  would  for  ever  prevent  their  being  combi- 
ned in  one  communion. 

The  first  step  towards  the  forming  of  a  collec- 
tive body  of  the  episcopal  church  in  the  United 
States,  was  taken,  at  a  meeting  for  another  purpose, 
of  a  few  clergymen  of  New  York,  New  Jersey  and 


11 

Pennsylvania,  at  Brunswick  in  New  Jersey,  on  the 
ISlli  and  14.tii  ot"  May,  17rt4.  Tiiese  clergymen,  iu 
consequence  of  prior  correspondence,  had  met  lor 
the  purpose  of  consulting,  in  what  way  to  renew  a 
society  that  had  existed  under  charters  of  incorpo- 
ration from  the  governors  of  the  said  three  states, 
for  the  support  of  widows  and  children  of  deceased 
clergymen.  Here  it  was  determined,  to  procure  a 
larger  meeting  on  the  tilth  of  the  ensuing  October, 
in  New  York;  not  only  lor  the  purpose  of  reviving 
the  said  charitable  institution,  but  to  confer  and 
agree  on  some  general  principles  of  an  union  of  the 
Episcopal  church  throughout  the  states.  C. 

Such  a  meeting  was  held,  at  the  time  and  place 
agreed  on:  and  although  the  members  composing  it 
were  not  vested  with  powers,  adequate  to  the  pre- 
sent exigencies  of  the  church;  they  happily  and  with 
great  unanimity  laid  down  a  few  general  principles, 
to  be  recommended  in  the  respect. ve  states,  as  the 
ground  on  which  a  future  ecclesiastical  government 
should  be  established.  These  principles  were  appro- 
batory of  Episcopacy  and  of  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer;  and  provided  for  a  representative  body  of 
the  church,  consisting  of  clergy  and  laity;  who  were 
to  vote  as  distinct  orders.  There  was  also  a  recom- 
mendation to  the  church  in  the  several  states,  to 
send  clerical  and  lay  deputies  to  a  meeting  to  be  held 
in  Philadelphia,  on  the  27th  of  September  in  the  fol- 
lowing year.  D. 

Although  at  the  meeting  last  held,  there  were 
present  two  clergymen  from  the  eastern  states;  yet  it 


12 

now  appeared,  that  there  was  no  probability,  for  the 
present,  of  the  aid  of  the  churches  in  those  states,  in 
the  measures  begun  for  the  obtaining  of  a  represen- 
tative body  of  the  church  at  large.  From  this  they 
thought  themselves  restrained  in  Connecticut,  in 
particular,  by  a  step  they  had  antecedently  taken, 
for  the  obtaining  of  an  Episcopate  from  England. 
For  until  the  event  of  their  application  could  be 
known,  it  naturally  seemed  to  them  inconsistent,  to 
do  any  thing  which  might  change  the  ground  on 
which  the  gentleman  of  their  choice  was  then  stand- 
ing. This  gentleman  was  the  Rev.  Samuel  Sea- 
bury,  D.  D.  formerly  missionary  on  Lonj;  Island; 
who  had  been  recommended  to  England  for  conse- 
cration, before  the  evacuation  of  New  York  by  the 
British  army. 

On  the  27th  of  September,  1785,  there  assembled, 
agreeably  to  appointment,  in  Philadelphia,  a  conven- 
tion of  clerical  and  lay  deputies,  from  seven  of  the 
thirteen  United  States,  viz.  from  New  York  to  Vir- 
ginia, inclusive,  with  the  addition  of  South  Carolina. 
They  applied  themselves  to  the  making  of  such  alte- 
rations in  tlie  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  as  were 
necessary  for  the  accommodating  of  it  to  the  late 
changes  in  the  state;  and  the  proposing,  but  not 
establishing,  of  such  other  alterations  in  that  book 
and  in  the  articles,  as  they  thought  an  improvement 
of  the  service  and  of  the  manner  of  stating  the  prin- 
cipal articles  of  faith;  these  were  published  in  a 
book,  ever  since  known  by  the  name  of  the  propo- 
sed book.  E. 


13 

The  convention  entered  on  the  business  of  the 
Episcopacy,  with  the  knowledge  that  there  was  now 
a  biyjiop  in  Connecticut;  consecrated,  not  in  Eng- 
land, but  by  the  non-juring  bishops  of  Scotland.  For 
Dr.  Seabury,  not  meeting  assurance  of  success  with 
the  bishops  of  the  former  country,  had  applied  to  the 
latter  quarter  for  the  succession,  which  had  been 
there  carelully  maintained;  notwithstanding  their 
severance  from  the  state,  in  the  revolution  of  1688. 
Bishop  Seabury  had  returned  to  America;  and  had 
entered  on  the  exercise  of  his  new  function,  in  the 
beginning  of  the  preceding  summer:  and  two  or 
three  gentlemen  of  the  southern  states  had  received 
ordination  from  his  hands.  Nevertheless,  the  mem- 
bers of  this  convention,  although  generally  impressed 
with  sentiments  of  respect  towards  the  new  bishop: 
and  although,  with  the  exception  of  a  few,  alleging 
nothing  against  the  validity  of  his  Episcopacy,  thought 
it  the  most  proper  to  direct  their  views  in  the  first 
instance  towards  England.  Jn  this  they  were  encou- 
raged by  information  which  they  thought  authentic, 
assigning  for  Dr.  Seabury's  failure  these  two  rea- 
sons; that  the  administration  had  some  apprehension 
of  embroiling  themselves  with  the  American  govern- 
ment, the  sovereignty  of  which  they  had  so  recentl) 
acknowledged;  and  that  the  bishops  were  doubtful, 
liow  far  the  act  of  some  clergymen,  in  their  indivi- 
dual capacities,  would  be  acquiesced  in  by  their  re- 
spective flocks.  For  the  meeting  of  the  former  difli- 
culty,  it  was  thought  easy  to  obtain,  and  there  were 
afterwards  obtained,  from  the  executive  authorities 


14 

of  the  states  in  which  the  new  bishops  were  to  re- 
side, certificates,  that  what  was  sought  did  not  inter- 
fere with  any  civil  laws  or  constitutions.  The  latter 
difficulty  was  thought  sufficiently  obviated,  by  the 
powers  under  which  the  present  convention  was  as- 
sembled. 

Accordingly,  they  addressed  the  archbishops  and^ 
bishops  of  England;  stating,  that  the  Episcopal 
church  in  the  United  States  had  been  severed  by  a 
civil  revolution,  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  parent 
church  in  England;  acknowledging  the  favours  for- 
merly received  from  the  bishops  of  London  in  par- 
ticular; and  from  the  archbishops  and  bishops  in 
general,  through  the  medium  of  the  society  for  pro- 
pagating the  gospel;  declaring  their  desire  to  perpe- 
tuate among  them  the  principles  of  the  Church  of 
England,  in  doctrine,  discipline,  and  worship;  and 
praying,  that  their  lordships  would  consecrate  to  the 
Episcopacy,  those  persons  who  should  be  sent  with 
that  view,  from  the  churches  in  any  of  the  states 
respectively. 

In  order  that  the  present  convention  might  be  suc- 
ceeded by  bodies  of  the  like  description,  they  framed 
an  ecclesiastical  constitution;  the  outlines  of  which 
were,  that  there  should  be  a  triennial  convention,  con- 
sisting of  a  deputation  from  the  church  in  each  state, 
of  not  more  than  four  clergymen,  and  as  many  laymen; 
that  they  should  vote  statevvise,  each  order  to  have  a 
negative  on  the  other;  that  when  there  should  be  a 
bishop  in  any  state,  he  should  be  officially  a  member 
of  the  convention;  that  the  ditferent  orders  of  clergy 


15 

should  be  accountable  to  the  ecclesiastical  authority, 
in  the  state  only  to  which  they  should  respectively  be- 
long; and  that  the  engagement  previous  to  ordination 
should  be  a  declaration  of  belief  in  the  holy  Scrip- 
tures, and  a  promise  of  contbrmity  to  the  doctrines 
and  the  worship  of  the  church. 

Further,  the  convention  appointed  a  committee, 
with  vaiious  powers;  among  which,  was  that  of  cor- 
responding, during  the  recess,  with  the  archbishops 
and  bishops  of  England:  and  they  adjourned,  to  meet 
again  in  Philadelphia,  on  tlie  20th  olJune,  in  the  fol- 
lowing year. 

After  the  rising  of  the  convention,  their  address  to 
the  English  prelates  was  forwarded  by  the  committee 
to  his  excellency  John  Adams,  Esq.,  the  American 
minister;  with  the  request,  that  it  might  be  delivered 
by  him  to  his  grace  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury. 
There  were  also  forwarded  certificates,  from  the  ex- 
ecutives of  the  states  in  which  there  was  a  probability 
of  there  being  bishops  chosen.  The  executives  who 
gave  these  certificates  were  those  of  New  York,  Penn- 
sylvania, Maryland,  and  Virginia.  These  evidences, 
agreeably  to  instructions  of  the  convention,  were  ap- 
plied for  by  the  members  of  that  body,  from  the  said 
states  respectively.  Mr.  Adams  willingly  performed 
the  service  solicited  of  him;  and  in  a  conversation 
which  he  held  with  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  on 
the  subject  of  the  address,  gave  such  information,  and 
expressed  such  sentiments,  as  were  calculated  to  pro-^ 
mote  the  object  of  it.  F. 


16 

In  the  spring  of  the  year  1 786,  the  committee  re- 
ceived an  answer,  signed  by  the  two  archbishops  and 
eighteen  of  the  twenty-four  bishops  of  England;  ac- 
knowledging the  receipt  of  what  they  were  pleased  to 
call  the  christian  and  brotherly  address  of  the  con- 
vention; and  declaring  their  wish  to  comply  with  the 
desiie  of  it;  but  delaying  measures  to  the  effect,  until 
there  should  be  laid  before  them  the  alterations  which 
had  been  made  by  the  convention:  it  having  been  re- 
presented to  the  bishops,  through  private  channels, 
that  the  alterations  were  essential  deviations  from  the 
Church  of  England,  either  in  doctrine  or  in  disciphne. 

Not  long  after  the  receipt  of  this  letter,  the  com- 
mittee received  another  from  the  archbishops  of  Can- 
terbury and  York,  to  whom  the  management  of  the 
business  had  been  left  by  their  brethren,  after  a  second 
meeting  of  the  body;  informing,  that  they  had  receiv- 
ed the  edited  book  of  common  prayer,  in  regard  to 
which  they  declared,  that  besides  their  seeing  of  no 
occasion  for  some  smaller  alterations,  which  they  do 
not  specify;  they  are  dissatisfied  with  the  omission 
of  the  Nicene  and  the  Athanasian  creeds;  and  of  the 
descent  into  hell  in  the  Apostle?'  creed.  And  they 
further  declare  their  disapprobation  of  an  article  in 
the  proposed  constitution,  which  seemed  to  them  to 
subject  the  future  bishops  to  a  trial  by  the  presby- 
ters and  the  laymen,  in  the  respective  states.  This, 
however,  does  not  seem  to  have  been  the  meaning  of 
the  article  alluded  to;  which  expresses  no  more,  than 
that  laws  for  the  trial  of  bishops  should  be  made,  not 
by  the  general,  but  by  each  state  ecclesiastical  repre- 


17 

sentative.  The  prelates  went  on  to  inform  the  com- 
mittee, that  they  were  hkely  to  obtain  an  act  of  par- 
liament, enabling  them  to  consecrate  for  America. 
They,  however,  expected,  that  before  they  should 
proceed  under  the  act,  satisfaction  should  be  given  in 
regard  lo  the  matters  stated.  The  same  communi- 
cation laid  down  what  would  be  required,  in  regard 
to  the  cliaracters  individually,  who  should  be  sent 
for  consecration.  As  to  faith,  they  were  to  make  the 
subscription,  which  the  American  church  had  pre- 
scribed, to  future  candidates  for  orders.  On  the  sub- 
ject of  learning,  it  was  thought  disrespectful  to  the 
persons  to  be  sent,  to  subject  them  to  an  examina- 
tion; it  being  at  the  same  time  trusted,  that  the  Ame- 
rican church  would  be  aware  of  the  disparagement 
of  the  episcopacy,  which  would  be  the  result  of  its 
being  conferred  on  persons  not  sufficiently  respect- 
ble,  in  point  of  literary  qualification.  In  order  to  give 
satisfaction  in  regard  to  the  religious  and  moral  cha- 
racter of  each  person  to  be  sent,  the  archbishops  re- 
quired, that  it  should  be  testified  by  the  convention 
chusing  him;  and  in  addition,  that  there  should  be  a 
certificate  from  the  general  convention,  to  the  effect 
that  they  knew  no  reason,  why  the  person  should  not 
be  consecrated  to  the  episcopal  office.  These  deter- 
minations are  given  as  the  result  of  a  consultation  of 
the  two  archbishops  and  fifteen  of  the  bishops;  being 
all  who  were  at  the  time  in  town.  Soon  after  the 
letter  from  the  two  archbishops,  there  came  one  from 
the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  alone,  inclosing  the  act 
of  parliament. 

c 


18 

After  the  receipt  of  the  first  of  the  letters  of  the 
Enghsh  prelates,  and  before  the  receipt  of  the  second, 
the  general  convention  assembled,  agreeably  to  ap- 
pointment, in  Philadelphia,  on  the  20th  of  June,  1786. 
The  principal  business  transacted  by  them,  was 
another  address  to  the  English  prelates;  containing 
an  acknowledgment  of  their  friendly  and  affectionate 
letter;  a  declaration  of  not  intending  to  depart  from 
the  doctrines  of  the  English  church;  and  a  determina- 
tion of  making  no  further  alterations,  than  such  as 
either  arose  from  a  change  of  circumstances,  or  ap- 
peared conducive  to  union;  and  a  repetition  of  the 
prayer  for  the  succession.  Before  their  adjournment, 
they  appointed  a  committee,  with  power  to  reassem- 
ble them,  if  thought  expedient,  at  Wilmington  in  the 
state  of  Delaware. 

On  the  committee's  receipt  of  the  second  letter, 
they  summoned  the  convention  to  meet,  at  the  place 
appointed,  on  the  1 0th  of  October  following.  The 
principal  matter  which  occupied  the  body  when  as- 
sembled, was  the  question,  how  far  they  should  ac- 
commodate to  the  requisitions  of  the  English  pre- 
lates. 

The  difficulty  concerning  the  offensive  article  of 
the  constitution  had  been  done  away,  before  the  ar- 
rival of  the  objection  of  the  archbishops.  This  ob- 
jection, as  already  observed,  was  grounded  on  a 
misapprehension  of  the  design  of  the  article.  But 
another  objection  had  been  made  within  the  Ameri- 
can church,  on  the  score  of  there  being  no  express 
provision  for  the  presidency  of  a  bishop  in  conven- 


19 

tions  and  in  ecclesiastical  trials.  This  objection  had 
gained  so  much  ground,  that,  in  the  session  of  June, 
it  had  been  fully  satisfied:  which  had  more  than  done 
away  the  ground  of  the  censure  of  the  prelates.  The 
omission  of  the  Nicene  creed  had  been  generally 
regretted;  and,  accordingly,  it  was  now,  without  de- 
bate or  difficulty,  restored  to  the  book  of  Common 
Prayer;  to  stand  after  the  Apostles'  Creed,  with  per- 
mission of  the  use  of  either.  The  clause  in  the  latter 
creed,  of  the  descent  into  hell,  occasioned  consider- 
able debate;  but  it  was  finally  restored.  The  restora- 
tion of  the  Athanasian  creed  was  negatived.  The 
result  of  the  deliberations  of  the  convention,  was 
addressed  to  the  two  archbishops,  with  thanks  for 
their  fatherly  attention  to  the  church;  especially  in 
procuring  legal  permission  for  the  conveying  of  the 
succession. 

The  deputies  from  the  several  states  were  called 
on,  beginning  from  the  northward,  foi*  information, 
whether  any  persons  had  been  chosen  in  thenj  res- 
pectively, to  proceed  to  England  for  consecration: 
when  it  appeared,  that  the  Rev.  Samuel  Provoost, 
D.  D.  rector  of  Trinity  church  in  the  city  of  New 
York,  had  been  chosen  for  that  purpose  by  the  con- 
vention in  that  state;  that  the  Rev.  William  White, 
D.  D.  rector  of  Christ  church  and  St.  Peter's  in  the 
city  of  Philadelphia,  had  been  chosen  by  the  conven- 
tion in  Pennsylvania;  and  that  the  Rev.  David  Grif- 
fith, D.  D,  rector  of  Fairfax  parish,  Virginia,  had 
been  chosen  by  the  convention  there.  Testimonials 
in  their  favour  from  the  conventions  in  the  respect^- 


20 

ive  states,  agreeable  to  the  form  prescribed  by  the 
archbishopSj  were  laid  before  the  general  convention; 
who  immediately  signed,  in  favour  of  each  of  the 
bishops  elect,  a  testimonial  according  to  the  form 
prescribed  to  them  by  the  same  authority.  G. 

The  two  former  of  the  above  named  clergymen, 
having  embarked  together  early  in  the  next  month, 
arrived  at  Falmouth,  after  a  passage  of  eighteen  days. 
On  their  reaching  of  London,  they  were  introduced 
to  his  grace  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  by  his 
excellency  Mr.  Adams,  who,  in  this  particular,  and 
in  every  instance  in  which  his  personal  attentions 
could  be  either  of  use  or  an  evidence  of  his  respect 
and  kindness,  continued  to  manifest  his  concern  for 
the  interests  of  a  church,  of  which  he  was  not  a 
member. 

Before  the  accomplishing  of  the  object  of  the 
voyage,  there  occurred  the  delay  of  a  few  weeks; 
owing  to  the  archbishop's  desire  of  previously  laying 
before  the  bishops  the  grounds  of  his  proceeding  to 
the  accomplishment  of  the  business,  in  the  early 
stages  of  which  they  had  been  consulted.  The 
greater  number  of  them  were  at  their  dioceses,  but 
were  expected  to  be  in  town  at  the  ensuing  opening 
of  parliament;  appointed  for  about  the  middle  of 
January.  Veiy  soon  afterwards,  the  fourth  of  Febru- 
ary was  appointed  for  the  consecration. 

On  that  day,  and  in  the  chapel  of  the  archiepisco- 
pal  palace  of  Lambeth,  Dr.  White  and  Dr.  Provoost 
were  ordained  and  consecrated  bishops,  by  the  most 
reverend  John  Moore,  archbishop  of  Canterbury.  The 


21 

most  reverend  William  Markham,  archbishop  oi' 
York,  presented.  And  the  bishops  who  joined  with  the 
two  archbishops  in  the  imposition  of  hands,  were  the 
right  reverend  Charles  Moss,  bishop  of  Bath  and 
Wells;  and  the  right  reverend  John  IlinchHff,  bishop 
of  Peterborough.  Before  the  end  of  the  same  month, 
the  newly  consecrated  bishops  sailed  i'rom  Falmouth 
for  New  York;  where  they  arrived  on  Easter  Sun- 
day, April  the  7th,  and  soon  afterwards  began  the 
exercise  of  the  episcopacy  in  their  respective  dio- 
ceses. H. 

On  the  28th  of  July,  1 789,  there  assembled  the 
triennial  convention;  by  whom  the  Episcopacy  of 
bishops  White  and  Provoost,  of  whom  the  former 
only  was  present,  the  latter  being  detained  by  sick- 
ness, was  duly  recognized.  At  this  convention,  there 
naturally  occurred  the  importance  of  taking  measures 
for  the  perpetuating  of  the  succession:  a  matter,  which 
some  circumstances  had  subjected  to  considerable 
difficulty.  The  Rev.  Dr.  Griffith  had  been  prevented 
by  occurrences  in  his  domestic  situation,  from  prose- 
cuting his  intended  voyage  to  England;  and  had  given 
in  his  resignation  to  the  convention  in  Virginia.  In 
consequence  of  their  direction,  the  resignation  was 
notified  to  the  general  convention,  on  the  first  day  of 
their  entering  on  business.  The  doctor  himself  had 
come  to  attend  it,  as  one  of  the  deputies  from  Virginia; 
but  his  attendance  was  prevented  by  sickness,  which 
ended  in  his  dissolution,  during  the  session.  The 
subject  of  perpetuating  the  succession  from  England, 
with  the  relation  which  it  bore  to  the  question  of 


22 

embracing  that  from  the  Scotch  Episcopacy,  was 
brought  into  view  by  a  measure  of  the  clergy  in 
Massachusetts  and  New  Hampshire.  This  body  had 
elected  the  Rev.  Edward  Bass,  rector  of  St.  Paul's 
church  in  Newburyport,  their  bishop;  and  had  ad- 
dressed a  letter  to  the  bishops  in  Connecticut,  New 
York  and  Pennsylvania,  praying  them  to  unite  in 
consecrating  him.  The  last  of  these  bishops,  being 
the  only  one  of  them  now  present  in  convention,  laid 
the  letter  addressed  to  him  before  the  body,  intimat- 
ing his  sincere  wish,  to  join  in  such  measures  as 
they  might  adopt,  for  the  forming  of  a  permanent 
union  with  the  churches  in  the  eastern  states;  but 
at  the  same  time  expressing  his  doubt  of  its  being 
consistent  with  the  faith  impliedly  pledged  to  the 
English  prelates,  to  proceed  to  any  consecration, 
without  first  obtaining  from  them  the  number  held  in 
their  church  to  be  canonically  necessary  to  such  an 
act.  This  sentiment,  which  he  also  supposed  to  be 
entertained  by  the  gentleman  who  had  been  conse- 
crated with  him,  was  duly  respected  by  the  body, 
while  they  manifested  an  earnest  desire  of  the  union 
alluded  to;  and,  with  a  view  to  it,  voted  their  opinion 
in  favour  of  the  validity  of  bishop  Seabury's  conse- 
cration; in  which  their  president  concurred. 

In  order  to  carry  the  sentiments  of  the  conven- 
tion into  effect,  they  signified  their  request  to  the  two 
bishops  consecrated  in  England,  that  they  would 
unite  witli  bishop  Seabury  in  the  consecration  of  Mr. 
Bass:  and  they  framed  an  address  to  the  archbishops 
and  bishops  of  England;  requesting  their  approbation 


23 

of  the  measure,  for  the  removing  of  any  difficulty  or 
delicacy,  which  might  remain  on  the  minds  of  the 
bishops  whom  they  had  already  consecrated.  And 
here  it  may  be  proper  to  record,  that  the  difficulty 
was  not  long  after  removed  in  another  way  by  the 
convention  of  Virginia  in  their  electing  of  tlie  Rev. 
James  Maddison,  D.  D.  president  of  William  and 
Mary's  college,  Williamsburg,  their  bishop;  and  by 
his  being  consecrated  in  England. 

At  the  present  session  of  the  general  convention, 
the  constitution  formed  in  1786  was  reviewed  and 
new  modelled.  The  principal  feature  now  given  to  it, 
was  a  distribution  into  two  houses;  one  consisting 
of  the  bishops,  and  the  other  of  the  clerical  and  lay 
deputies,  who  must  vote,  when  required  by  the  cle- 
rical or  by  the  lay  representation  from  any  state,  as 
under  the  former  constitution,  by  orders.  The  stated 
meetings,  were  to  be  on  the  second  Tuesday  in  Sep- 
tember in  every  third  year;  but  intermediate  meet- 
ings might  be  called  by  the  bishops. 

When  the  convention  adjourned,  it  was  to  the  29th 
of  September  following:  and  before  the  adjournment, 
an  invitation  was  given  by  them  to  bishop  Seabury, 
and  to  their  brethren  generally  in  the  eastern  states, 
to  be  present  at  the  proposed  session;  with  a  view  to 
a  permanent  union. 

On  that  day,  the  convention  reassembled,  when 
it  appeared  that  bishop  Seabury,  with  sundry  of  the 
clergy  from  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut,  had 
accepted  the  invitation  given  them.  There  was  laid 
before  the  convention,  and  by  them  ordered  to  be  re- 


24 

corded,  evidence  of  that  bishop's  consecration :  which 
had  been  performed  by  bishops  Kilgour,  Petrie,  and 
Skinner,  of  the  non-juring  church  in  Scotland. 
There  then  ensued  a  conference  between  a  com- 
mittee of  the  convention  and  the  clergy  from  the 
eastern  states;  the  result  of  which  was,  that,  after 
one  alteration  of  the  constitution  at  their  desire,  they 
declared  their  acquiescence  in  it,  and  gave  it  their 
signatures  accordingly. 

It  had  been  provided  in  the  constitution,  that  the 
arrangement  of  two  houses  should  take  place,  as 
soon  as  three  bishops  should  belong  to  the  body. 
This  circumstance  now  occurred;  although  there 
were  present  only  two  of  them,  who  accordingly 
formed  the  house  of  bishops. 

The  two  houses  entered  on  a  review  of  the  litur- 
gy; the  bishops  originating  alterations  in  some  ser- 
vices, and  the  house  of  clerical  and  lay  deputies  pro- 
posing others.  The  result  was  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  as  it  was  then  established  and  has  been  ever 
since  used. 

Some  canons  had  been  passed  in  the  preceding 
session;  but  they  were  reconsidered  and  passed  with 
sundry  others,  which  continue  to  this  day  substan- 
tially the  same;  but  with  some  alterations  and  addi- 
tions by  succeeding  conventions.  I. 

The  next  triennial  convention  was  held  in  the 
city  of  New  York,  in  the  autumn  of  1792:  at  which 
were  present  the  four  bishops  already  mentioned  to 
have  been  consecrated  abroad.  Hitherto,  there  had 
been  no  consecration  in  America:  but  at  this  con 


25 

vention,  although  notliing  further  was  brought  be- 
fore them  from  Massachusetts,  relative  to  Dr.  Bass; 
the  deputies  from  Maryland  applied  to  the  assembled 
bishops  for  the  consecration  of  the  Rev,  Thomas 
John  Claggett,  D.  D.  who  had  been  elected  bishop  by 
the  convention  of  that  state.  Dr.  Claggett  was  ac- 
cordingly consecrated,  during  the  session  of  the  con- 
vention, in  Trinity  church,  of  the  city  in  which  they 
were  assembled.* 

The  bishops,  having  reviewed  the  ordinal  of  the 
church  of  England,  proposed  a  few  alterations  in  it 
to  the  house  of  clerical  and  lay  deputies;  principally 
such  as  were  necessary  for  the  accommodating  of  it 
to  local  circumstances.  The  ordinal,  thus  reviewed, 
is  now  the  established  form  for  the  consecrating  of 
bishops  and  the  ordaining  of  priests  and  deacons.  K. 

In  September  1795,  there  was  held  another  trien- 
nial convention,  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia;  at  which 
were  present  all  the  bishops,  except  bishop  Seabury. 
Besides  other  matters  acted  on,  some  canons  were 
made;  and  a  service  was  ordered  for  the  consecra- 
ting of  a  church  or  chapel.  It  is  substantially  the 
same  with  a  service  composed  by  bishop  Andrews, 
in  the  reign  of  James  the  First;  and  since  common- 
ly used  by  the  English  bishops  in  such  consecra- 
tions; but  without  the  authority  of  convocation  or  of 
parhament.  During  the  session,  there  took  place  the 
consecration  of  the  Rev.  Robert  Smith,  D.  D.  rector 

*  Dr.  Claggett  was  consecrated  by  bishop  Provoost,  who  pre- 
sided at  this  convention,  assisted  by  bishops  Seabury,  White 
and  Madison - 

D 


26 

of  St.  Philip's,  in  Charleston,  South  Carolina;  who 
had  been  elected  by  the  convention  in  that  state, 
their  bishop  *  L. 

Between  this  and  the  next  convention,  there  was 
consecrated  the  Rev.  Edward  Bass;  again  recom- 
mended from  Massachusetts  and  New  Hampshire: 
the  certificate  usually  given  on  such  occasions  by 
the  general  convention,  being  in  this  instance  given 
by  a  standing  committee  of  that  body;  agreeably  to 
a  provision  which  had  been  made  to  that  effectf 

And  on  the  18th  of  October  of  the  same  year, 
there  was  consecrated,  in  Trinity  church  in  the  city 
of  Newhaven,  the  Rev.  Abraham  Jarvis,  D.  D.,  for 
the  state  of  Connecticut.f 

There  would  have  been  a  convention  in  Phila- 
delpliia,  in  September  1798:  but  the  prevalence  of 
epidemical  disease  preventing  their  assembling,  the 
bishops,  agreeably  to  a  power  vested  in  them  when 
desired  by  a  standing  committee  of  the  convention, 
summoned  that  body  to  meet,  in  the  same  city,  on 
the  11th  of  June,  1799.  On  this  occasion,  the  review 
of  the  articles  was  moved  in  the  house  of  clerical 
and  lay  deputies.  And  a  committee  was  appointed, 
who  drew  up  a  body  of  articles;  which  were  not 
acted  on,  but  ordered  to  be  printed  on  the  Journal, 

*  The  consecration  of  Dr.  Smith  was  by  the  presiding 
bisliop,  assisted  by  bishops  Provoost,  Madison  and  Claggett. 

t  The  consecration  of  Dr.  Bass  was  in  Christ-church  in  the 
city  of  Philadephia,  May  7th,  1797,  by  the  presiding  bishop,  as- 
sisted by  bishops  Provoost  and  Claggett. 

X  The  consecration  of  Dr.  Jarvis,  was  by  bishop  White,  as- 
sisted by  bishops  Provoost  and  Bass. 


27 

as  a  report  of  a  committee  of  one  of  the  houses,  to 
lie  over  for  the  consideration  of  the  next  convention  ^ 
which  was  appointed  to  he  in  the  city  of  Trenton, 
Nevr  Jersey.  M. 

It  assembled  there,  in  September  1801:  when 
there  was  broui^ht  before  the  bishops  present  at  it, 
three  in  number,  the  question  of  tlie  admissibihty  of 
a  resignation  of  the  episcopal  charge.  A  letter  from 
bishop  Provoost  had  been  addressed  to  one  of  the 
bishops  present,  and  by  him  laid  before  the  house; 
stating,  that  induced  by  ill  health  and  some  circum- 
stances of  a  domestic  nature,  he  wished  to  retire 
from  all  public  employment;  and  had  therefore  re- 
signed, at  a  late  meeting  of  the  convention  in  New 
York,  his  jurisdiction  of  bishop  in  that  state.  In  con- 
sequence of  this  resignation,  the  Rev.  Benjamin 
Moore,  D.  D.  who,  on  account  of  bishop  Provoost's 
resignation  of  the  rectory  of  Trinity  church,  in  the 
city  of  New^  York,  had  been  chosen  to  that  place, 
was  also  elected  to  succeed  to  the  episcopacy.  The 
house  of  bishops,  having  taken  this  subject ''under 
their  serious  consideration,  and  doubting  of  the  pro- 
priety of  sanctioning  episcopal  resignation,  declined 
any  act  to  that  effect.  But  being  sensible  of  the 
exigency  existing  in  the  state  of  New  York,  they 
consented  to  the  consecration  of  an  assistant  bishop: 
it  being  understood,  that  he  should  be  competent  in 
point  of  character  to  all  the  episcopal  duties;  and, 
that  the  extent  in  which  the  same  were  to  be  dis- 
charged by  him,  should  be  dependent  on  such  regu- 
lations as  expediency  might  dictate  to  the  church  in 
New  York;  grounded  on  the  indisposition  of  bishop 


28 

Provoost,  and  with  his  concurrence.    Conformably 
with  the  hne  of  conduct  thus  laid  down,  Dr.  Benja- 
min Moore,  being  duly  recommended,  was  conse- 
crated during  the  session,  in  St.  Michael's  church 
Trenton;  and  took  his  seat  in  the  house  of  bishops. 

In  this  convention,  the  important  business  of  the 
articles  was  again  taken  up;  and  now,  for  the  first 
time,  authoritatively  acted  on.  After  repeated  discus- 
sions and  propositions,  it  had  been  found,  that  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Gospel,  as  they  stand  in  the  39  articles 
of  the  church  of  England,  with  the  exception  of  such 
matters  as  are  local,  were  more  likely  to  give  gene- 
ral satisfaction,  than  the  same  doctrines  in  any  new 
form  that  might  be  devised.  The  former  were  there- 
fore adopted  by  the  two  houses  of  convention,  with- 
out their  altering  of  even  the  obsolete  diction  in  them; 
but  with  notices  of  such  changes  as  change  of  situa- 
tion had  rendered  necessary.  Exclusively  of  such, 
there  4s  one  exception;  that  of  adapting  the  article 
concerning  the  creeds,  to  the  former  exclusion  of  the 
Athanasian. 

It  is  further  to  be  remembered,  that,  in  regard 
to  subscription  to  the  articles,  there  is  a  consi- 
derable difference  between  the  form  required  in  the 
church  of  England,  as  laid  down  in  her  36th  canon; 
and  that  prescribed  in  the  constitution  of  the  Ame- 
rican church.  The  latter  form  had  so  far  acquired 
the  approbation  of  the  English  prelates,  as  to  be 
thought  sufficient  on  the  part  of  those  who  came  to 
them  for  consecration,  from  America.  N. 

Throughout  this  narrative,  it  must  have  appeared, 
that  the  object  kept  in  view,  in  all  the  consultations 


29 

held,  and  the  determinations  formed,  was  the  per- 
petuating of  the  episcopal  church,  on  the  ground  of 
the  general  principles  which  she  had  inherited  from 
the  church  of  England;  and  of  not  departing  from 
them,  except  so  far  as  either  local  circumstances 
required,  or  some  very  important  cause  rendered 
proper.  To  those  acquainted  with  the  system  of  the 
church  of  England,  it  must  be  evident,  that  the  ob- 
ject here  stated  was  accomplished  on  the  ratification 
of  the  articles. 

The  next  triennial  convention  was  in  the  city  of 
New  York,  September  11th,  1804.  Canons  were 
passed,  extending  to  a  greater  variety-  of  objects, 
than  had  been  provided  for  before.  An  office  was 
framed  and  ordered  to  be  used,  at  the  induction  of 
ministers  to  the  rectorship  of  churches.  A  course 
of  ecclesiastical  studies  of  candidates  for  orders, 
was  prescribed  by  the  bishops.  And  the  constitution 
was  altered,  agreeably  to  a  proposition  made  in  the 
preceding  convention  and  notified  to  the  conventions 
in  the  states,  so  as  that  the  future  triennial  con- 
ventions shall  be  in  the  month  of  May,  instead  of 
September.  During  the  session,  the  Kev.  Samuel 
Parker,  D.  D.  rector  of  Trinity  church,  in  Bos- 
ton, was  consecrated  bishop  in  Trinity  church,  New 
York,  in  the  room  of  bishop  Bass,  who  had  departed 
this  life.  There  had  also  died,  since  the  last  con- 
vention, bishop  Smith  of  South  Carolina.  And  it 
was  understood,  that  the  Rev.  Edward  Jenkins,  D.  D. 
who  had  been  elected  to  supply  his  place,  had  de- 
fiined  the  station.    Since  the  events  here  recorded. 


30 

bishop  Parker  departed  this  Hfe,  a  few  months  after 
his  consecration.  0. 

The  next  meeting  of  the  general  convention  was 
in  the  city  of  Baltimore,  from  May  17th,  1808,  to 
the  26th  of  the  same  month.  Two  bishops  only 
(bishops  White  and  Claggett)  were  present  at  this 
convention;  and  the  church  in  seven  states  only  was 
represented. 

There  was  now  ratified  the  long  proposed  amend- 
ment of  the  constitution;  annulling  the  provision,  by 
which  four  fifths  of  the  house  of  clerical  and  lay 
deputies  could  accomplish  a  measure,  without  the 
concurrence  of  the  house  of  bishops. 

There  was  also  proposed  another  amendment  of 
the  constitution,  for  the  preventing  of  alterations  in 
the  liturgy,  unless  the  same  should  have  been  propos- 
ed at  a  previous  convention. 

The  whole  body  of  the  canons  was  reviewed, 
and  underwent  considerable  alterations. 

A  committee  was  appointed,  to  address  the  church 
in  the  different  states.  The  objects  in  view,  were  to 
procure  a  more  full  attendance  on  future  conventions, 
and  to  extend  the  episcopacy  to  the  western  states. 

"  The  office  of  Induction,"  established  by  the 
last  convention,  was  changed  in  name  to  "  The  of- 
fice of  Institution,"  and  rested  on  recommendation, 
not  on  requisition,  as  before. 

The  sense  of  the  two  houses  was  given  on  two 
points,  which  had  created  diversity  of  opinion  and  of 
practice — Whether  a  minister  ought  to  officiate  at 
the  funeral  of  any  person  killed  in  a  duel;  and — 
Whether  a  minister  should  unite  in  marriage  any 


31 

person  who  has  been  divorced;  unless  it  be  on  account 
of  the  other  party^s  having  been  guilty  of  adultery. 
Both  these  questions  were  decided  in  the  negative. 

There  was  also  introduced  into  the  house  of  cle- 
rical and  lay  deputies,  on  recommendation  of  the 
church  in  Maryland,  the  subject  of  marriage,  as  con- 
nected with  the  degrees  of  consanguinity  and  affinity. 
But  on  communication  of  the  matter  to  the  house  of 
bishops,  it  was,  on  their  recommendation,  referred 
to  a  future  convention. 

Thirty  hymns,  were  added  to  the  Book  of  Psalms 
and  Hymns. 

As  ordained  by  a  canon  of  the  last  convention, 
a  pastoral  letter  from  the  house  of  bishops  to  the 
members  of  this  church  was  drawn  up  by  them, 
communicated  to  the  house  of  clerical  and  lay  depu- 
ties, and  there  read. 

On  the  rising  of  the  convention,  Newhaven,  in 
the  state  of  Connecticut,  was  appointed  as  the  next 
place  of  meeting.  The  session  was  ended,  by  an  at- 
tendance on  the  morning  service  of  the  day,  which 
was  the  festival  of  the  Ascension.  P. 

Agreeably  to  the  aforesaid  appointment;  the  next 
general  convention  was  held  in  the  city  of  Newhaven, 
on  Tuesday  the  21st  of  May,  1811.  It  continued  in 
session,  until  Friday  the  24th.  Only  bishops  White 
and  Jarvis,  of  the  house  of  bishops,  were  present. 
The  church  in  nine  states  was  represented. 

They  ratified  the  amendment  to  the  constitution 
proposed  at  the  last  convention,  restraining  from  alter- 
ations of  the  Liturgy,  except  such  as  may  be  proposed 
at  one  convention  and  determined  on  at  another. 


32 

On  the  subject  of  the  canons,  nothing  was  done, 
except  the  repeahng  of  the  last  or  46th  of  the  canons, 
as  passed  at  the  last  convention,  entitled,  "  Providing 
for  making  known  the  Constitution  and  Canons  of 
the  Church/' 

The  rule  prohibiting  the  officiating  at  the  funerals 
of  persons  killed  in  duels,  was  so  far  moderated,  as 
to  allow  of  the  same,  if,  on  any  occasion,  the  party 
in  question  had  manifested  repentance. 

There  were  some  communications  made  in  re- 
gard to  the  western  churches,  and  the  extending  of 
the  episcopacy  to  them ;  but  a  plan  to  that  effect  was 
not  yet  matured.  Further  attention  to  the  subject 
was  committed  to  the  bishops  of  this  church,  in 
Pennsylvania  and  Virginia. 

The  attendance  of  so  few  of  the  bishops;  three 
of  the  four  absent  bishops  being  prevented  by  bodily 
indisposition,  and  the  remaining  bishop  being  absent 
by  indispensable  engagements;  it  was  agreed  not  to 
take  up,  at  present,  the  important  subject  of  marri- 
ages, within  certain  degrees  of  consanguinity  and 
affinity. 

A  pastoral  address  was  sent  by  the  bishops  to 
the  other  house,  to  be  printed  with  the  journal  agree- 
ably to  a  requisition  of  the  45th  canon. 

It  had  been  expected,  that  on  the  occasion  of  this 
convention,  there  would  have  been  a  consecration  of 
two  bishops:  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  John  Henry  Hobart, 
chosen  assistant  bishop  for  the  state  of  New  York; 
and  of  the  Rev.  Alexander  Viets  Griswold,  chosen 
bishop  for  the  four  states  of  Massachusetts,  New 


33 

Hampshire,  Vermont  and  Rhode  Island.  The  ex- 
pectation was  disappointed,  by  the  want  of  the  cano- 
nical number  on  the  spot.  But  the  testimonials  of 
the  bishops  elect  were  signed;  and  the  two  bishops 
present  repaired  with  them  to  the  city  of  New  York: 
where  with  the  assistance  of  the  ri2;ht  Rev.  bishop 
Provoost,  whose  indisposition,  although,  with  difficulty, 
permitted  his  attendance  in  the  place  of  his  residence, 
and  witii  the  assistance  of  bishop  Jarvis,  the  conse- 
cration was  performed  by  the  presiding  bishop  on 
the  29th  of  May,  in  Trinity  church,  in  the  said  city. 

It  was  referred  to  the  presiding  bishop,  "  to  ad- 
dress a  letter,  in  behalf  of  this  convention,  to  the 
venerable  society  in  England  for  propagating  the 
Gospel  in  foreign  parts,  informing  them  that  the 
church  in  the  state  of  Vermont  is  duly  organized, 
and  in  union  with  the  protestant  episcopal  churches  in 
the  United  States,  being  placed  under  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  bishop  of  New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts, 
Rhode  Island,  and  Vermont;  that  a  board  of  trus- 
tees of  donations  to  the  church  has  been  incorporated 
in  the  state  of  Massachusetts;  and  that  in  the  opinion 
of  this  convention,  the  society  may  safely  confide  the 
care  of  their  lands  in  Vermont  to  such  attorney  or 
attornies,  as  may  be  recommended  by  the  said  board 
of  trustees,  and  approved  of  by  the  ecclesiastical 
convention  of  Vermont.^' 

When  the  convention  rose,  it  was  agreed  to  hold 
the  next  triennial  convention  in  the  city  of  Philadel- 
phia. Q, 


34 

The  next  triennial  convention  was  held,  agree- 
ably to  appointment  of  that  of  1811,  in  the  city  of 
Philadelphia,  from  Tuesday  the  17th  of  May,  to 
Tuesday  the  24th  of  the  same  month,  in  the  year 
1814.  The  bishops  present  at  it  were,  bishop  White, 
of  the  church  in  Pennsylvania,  bishop  Hobart,  the 
assistant  bishop  of  the  church  in  New  York,  bishop 
Griswold,  of  the  Eastern  Diocess,  bishop  Dehon,  of 
South  Carolina,*  and,  the  second  day  of  the  session, 
bishop  Richard  C.  Moore,  of  Virginia. 

In  the  last  mentioned  state,  the  church  had  been, 
for  many  years,  more  and  more  under  a  decline. 
On  the  decease  of  bishop  Madison,  there  had  en- 
sued a  difficulty  in  the  choice  of  a  successor,  until 
a  few  gentlemen,  some  of  the  clerical  and  some  of 
the  lay  order,  suggested  the  choice  of  the  gentleman 
mentioned  above,  who  had  acquired  considerable 
popularity  in  the  city  of  New  York;  wherein  there 
was  a  large  congregation  under  his  ministry.  The 
defect  of  episcopal  maintenance  was  expected  to  be 
surmounted,  by  connecting  the  office  of  bishop  with 
that  of  the  rectory  of  a  church  recently  erected  in 
the  city  of  Richmond,  on  the  site  of  a  theatre,  des- 
troyed a  few  years  before  by  a  fire,  wherein  a  con- 
siderable proportion  of  the  inhabitants  had  been 
consumed.  The  requisite  testimonials  having  been 
furnished,  Dr.  Moore  was  consecrated  in  St.  James's 

*  Bishop  Dehon  had  been  consecrated,  October  15th,  1812, 
in  Christ  church,  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  by  tlie  presiding 
bishop,  assisted  by  bishops  Jarvis  and  Hobart 


35 

church,  Philadelphia,  by  the  presidins;  bishop,  assisted 
by  bishops  Hobart,  Griswold,  and  Dehon.  The  ser- 
mon preached  at  the  opening  of  the  convention,  serv- 
ing for  the  consecration  also,  was  by  bishop  Hobart 
of  New  York.  He  supplied  the  place  of  bishop 
Claggett  of  Maryland,  who  was  kept  away  by  indis- 
position. 

There  were  three  canons  passed  at  this  conven- 
tion. One  of  them  was  concerning  the  alms  and 
contributions  at  the  holy  communion.  They  are 
subjected  to  the  distribution  of  the  minister,  or  such 
person  as  they  may  be  committed  to  by  him.  The 
provision  was  designed  to  limit  munificence  of  this 
description  to  poor  communicants,  and  to  sustain  a 
pastoral  intercourse  with  them.  The  cause  of  inter- 
position in  this  matter,  was  some  proposals  of  ap- 
propriation said  to  have  been  made,  for  church 
purposes  indeed,  but  wide  of  the  original  design  of 
the  oblations  at  the  Lord's  table. 

The  next  canon  was  explanatory  of  the  29th, 
guarding  against  the  effect  of  its  excluding  from 
diocesan  conventions  and  votes  in  the  choice  of 
bishops,  of  uninstituted  ministers  and  deacons,  where 
these  are  not  excluded  by  the  respective  diocesan 
constitutions;  and  further,  against  the  extending  of 
the  office  of  Institution  to  gatherings  of  persons  not 
bound  together  by  a  common  interest  in  a  place  of 
worship. 

The  remaining  canon  was  a  repeal  of  so  much 
of  the  4ath,  as  requires  the  reading  in  the  general 
conveutiou,   of  the  parochial    reports   entered   on 


36 

the  journals  of  the  different  state  conventions.  The 
design  of  this,  was  to  devolve  on  the  church  in 
each  state,  the  preparing  of  a  report  of  its  concerns. 
Accordingly,  this  was  provided  for  by  a  separate  re- 
solve. 

There  was  also  entered  on  the  journal  an  ex- 
planation of  the  19th  canon;  which  regulates  the 
dress  of  candidates  for  orders,  and  other  particulars 
relative  to  them.  The  explanation  goes  to  the  point, 
that  such  provisions  are  merely  a  guard  against  po- 
pular mistakes. 

At  the  instance  of  the  clerical  menibers  from  the 
diocess  of  Connecticut,  who  acted  under  instructions 
from  the  convention  of  that  state,  the  bishops  gave 
their  sense  of  some  matters  in  the  9th  canon,  and  in 
the  40th.  Their  sense,  which  was  sanctioned  by  the 
house  of  clerical  and  lay  deputies,  is  as  follows: 

The  9th  canon  having  provided,  that  some  lite- 
rary qualifications,  therein  specified,  may  be  dispens- 
ed with,  in  consideration  of  certain  other  qualifica- 
tions of  the  candidate  for  the  ministry,  the  bishops 
define  the  latter  to  be,  a  considerable  extent  of  theo- 
logical learning,  a  peculiar  aptitude  to  teach,  and  a 
large  share  of  prudence.  The  40th  canon  having 
referred  to  persons,  who  join  a  congregation  of  this 
church  from  some  other  religious  society,  the  bishops 
rested  the  evidence  of  the  membership  of  such  a 
congregation  on  the  two  circumstances,  of  their  being 
baptized  persons,  and  of  their  possessing  an  interest 
in  its  concerns,  by  express  or  implied  permission.  But 
lliere  is  a  caution  against  its  being  supposed,  that  a 


37 

more  definite  mode  for  the  same  object  may  not 
hereafter  be  profitably  adopted. 

It  was  thougiit  proper  in  this  convention,  to  issue 
a  declaration,  that  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  United  States,  is  the  church  formerly  known 
among  us,  under  the  name  of  "  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land in  America."  Accordingly,  an  instrument  to 
this  effect  was  drawn  up  by  the  bishops,  and  receiv- 
ed the  approbation  of  the  house  of  clerical  and  lay 
deputies. 

At  the  suggestion  of  the  bishops,  the  house  of 
clerical  and  lay  deputies  joined  them  in  an  instru- 
ment, designed  for  the  introduction  of  the  posture  of 
standing,  during  the  singing  of  any  portion  of  the 
psalms  or  hymns  in  metre.  This  comely  practice  had 
recently  been  introduced,  in  some  of  the  congrega- 
tions of  this  church:  in  all  of  which,  it  was  heretofore 
the  custom  to  sit,  during  that  act  of  devotion. 

In  consideration  of  the  scarcity  of  the  homilies 
of  the  church  of  Englf^nd,  and  of  their  being  recog- 
nized by  the  articles  of  this  church,  although  with 
due  regard  to  the  diversity  of  local  circumstances, 
the  two  houses  made  a  provision,  which  has  occa- 
sioned an  edition  of  them  in  this  country.  In  the 
event  of  a  failure  of  this,  they  were  to  be  provided 
for  the  use  of  candidates  for  the  ministry,  by  the 
bishops,  or  other  ecclesiastical  authorities  in  the  re- 
spective states. 

On  the  journal  of  the  last  triennial  convention, 
the  providing  for  an  episcopacy  in  the  western  states 


38 

was  held  out  as  a  desirable  object.  Intermediate  cir- 
cumstances having  prevented  the  acting  on  this  bu- 
siness, it  was  again  held  out  as  a  matter  to  be  kept 
in  view. 

On  the  same  journal  there  was  recorded  a  mea- 
sure, designed  to  obtain  from  the  society  (in  Eng- 
land) for  Propagating  the  Gospel,  a  legal  title  to 
lands  in  Vermont;  originally  appropriated  for  the 
episcopal  church  in  those  states,  but  vested  in  that 
society  in  trust.  All  proceedings  in  this  business 
was  suspended,  at  first  by  the  circumstance  that 
the  necessary  documents  were  not  in  preparation; 
and  since,  by  the  occurrence  of  the  war. 

In  consequence  of  a  communication  to  the  bishops 
proposing  to  them,  what  was  considered  as  a  profit- 
able improvement  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer; 
they  proposed  to  the  house  of  clerical  and  lay  depu- 
ties a  declaration,  that  it  was  not  intended  to  bring 
the  Book  under  review  during  this  convention.  And 
in  consequence  of  a  communication  proposing  to  the 
bishops,  to  give  their  sanction  to  a  work  on  a  sub- 
ject of  great  importance  in  religion,  they  made  it  a 
rule  of  their  house,  that  in  future,  no  application  of 
this  sort  shall  be  considered  as  regularly  before  them: 
and  they  proposed  to  the  house  of  clerical  and  lay 
deputies,  a  declaration  to  the  same  effect.  The 
house  of  clerical  and  lay  deputies  signified  their 
concurrence  in  the  proposals,  with  tlieir  thanks,  for 
what  they  called  "  the  judicious  course  adopted  in 
reference  to  these  subjects.^^^ 


39 

A  question  was  moved  in  each  of  the  houses,  as 
to  the  propriety  of  estabhshing  a  theological  school, 
to  be  exclusively  under  the  patronage  of  the  general 
convention.  The  subject  was  referred  to  a  future 
meeting  of  the  body;  and  in  the  mean  time,  measures 
were  to  be  taken  to  ascertain  the  general  wish  on 
the  subject,  in  each  of  the  states. 

A  proposal  was  also  made,  to  grant  an  exclusive 
copy-right  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  for  a 
valuable  consideration.  This  also  was  delayed,  under 
the  same  provision  for  the  ascertaining  of  the  gene- 
ral sense  of  the  church;  and  with  it,  advice  in  law. 

As  at  each  of  the  last  two  conventions,  a  pastoral 
letter  was  drawn  up  by  the  house  of  bishops,  and 
read  in  the  house  of  clerical  and  lay  deputies. 

The  convention  appointed  their  next  triennial 
meeting  to  be  in  the  city  of  New  York.  R. 

Agreeably  to  appointment  at  the  last  general 
convention,  there  assembled  another  in  the  city  of 
New  York,  on  the  20th  of  May  1817.  There  were 
present  all  the  bishops:  the  house  then  consisting  of 
bishops  White,  Hobart,  Griswold,  Dehon,  Moore, 
Kemp,  and  Croes.  The  occasion  was  opened  by  a 
discourse  from  bishop  Griswold.* 

*  During  the  recess  of  the  convention,  Dr.  Kemp  had  been 
consecrated  on  the  1st  day  of  September,  1814,  in  Christ  church, 
in  the  city  of  Brunswick,  New  Jersey  by  the  presiding  bishop, 
assisted  by  bishops  Hobart  and  Moore.  And  Dr.  Croes  had  been 
consecrated  on  the  19th  day  of  November,  1815,  in  St.  Peter's 
church  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  by  the  presiding  bishop,  assisted 
by  bishops  Hobart  and  Kemp. 


40 

In  consequence  of  an  application  from  the  church 
in  North  Carolina,  in  which  a  convention  had  been 
held,  the  said  church  was  considered  as  having  ac- 
ceeded  to  the  ecclesiastical  constitution.  From  the 
time  of  the  revolutionary  war,  there  had  been  but 
temporary  supplies  of  the  ministry,  in  a  few  places; 
but  some  clergymen,  recently  settled  in  the  state, 
in  connexion  with  some  influential  lay  gentlemen, 
had  taken  active  measures  for  the  revival  of  our 
communion. 

The  presiding  bishop,  made  report  of  sundry 
matters  committed  to  him,  by  the  last  convention. 
They  were  the  certifying  to  the  venerable  society  (in 
England)  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel,  of  cer- 
tain facts  in  favour  of  the  church  in  Vermont,  rela- 
tively to  lands  of  which  the  titles  were  vested  in  the 
society — the  taking  of  measures,  relatively  to  the  or- 
ganizing of  the  church  beyond  the  Alleghany  moun- 
tains, and  the  republishing  of  the  journals  of  this 
church  from  the  beginning.  The  first  and  the  last 
had  been  carried  into  effect,  and  the  other  had  been 
attended  to,  as  far  as  circumstances  would  permit. 
The  thanks  of  the  house  were  voted  to  the  presiding 
bishop. 

Relatively  to  the  last  mentioned  subject,  the  house 
of  bishops  saw  cause,  to  record  their  opinion  as  fol- 
lows: 

Resolved,  that  it  be  recommended  to  the  Episco- 
pal congregations  in  the  states  referred  to  in  the 
above  communications,  where  conventions  are  not 
already  organized,  to  organize  conventions,  which 


41 

may  be  received  into  union  with  this  convention,  and, 
vvlien  expedient,  may  unite,  according  to  the  canons, 
in  the  choice  of  a  bishop,  having  jurisdiction  over 
those  states;  and  that  this  convention  have  received 
with  much  satisfaction  information  of  the  measures 
which  have  been  already  adopted  in  the  state  of  Ohio, 
for  the  organization  of  the  Church  in  that  state. 

Resolved,  that  though  the  measure  of  a  conven- 
tion comprising  sundry  states  in  the  western  country, 
may  be  a  measure  of  temporary  expediency,  it  can- 
not be  authorised  by  this  convention  consistently 
with  the  general  constitution  of  the  church,  which 
recognizes  only  a  convention  of  the  church  in  each 
state. 

Resolved,  that  it  be  earnestly  recommended  to 
the  authorities  of  this  church,  in  each  state  respect- 
ively, to  adopt  measures  for  sending  missionaries  to 
our  destitute  brethren  in  the  w^estern  states:  such 
missionaries  to  be  subject  to  the  direction  of  the  ec- 
clesiastical authority  of  the  state  or  states  in  which 
they  may  officiate. 

Resolved,  that  the  presiding  bishop  be  requested 
to  transmit  the  foregoing  resolutions  to  such  person 
or  persons  as  he  may  judge  proper." 

This  resolve  was  carried  into  effect,  partly  by  a 
canon  made  during  the  session,  and  partly  by  a  for- 
warding of  the  contemplated  communications. 

The  several  bishops  made  reports  on  the  sense 
of  the  church  in  their  respective  dioceses,  on  the 
subject  of  a  theological  school.  There  was  diversity 
of  opinion .  but  the  general  sense,  in  both  houses,  was 

F 


42 

in  favour  of  a  general  school;  which  on  the  proposal 
of  the  house  of  bishops,  and  with  the  consent  of  the 
house  of  clerical  and  lay  deputies,  was  determined  to 
be  instituted  in  New  York.  For  the  carrying  of  the 
design  into  effect  there  was  chosen  a  committee,  con- 
sisting of  members  of  both  houses.  On  the  part  of 
the  house  of  bishops,  there  were  chosen  bishops 
White,  Hobart,  and  Croes;  and  on  the  part  of  the 
house  of  clerical  and  lay  deputies,  Drs.  Wharton, 
Harris,  and  How,  honourable  Rufus  King,  Charles 
Fenton  Mercer,  Esq.,  and  WiUiam  Meredith,  Esq. 

The  house  of  bishops  thought  it  expedient,  to 
make  a  solemn  call  on  the  attention  of  the  clergy  in 
relation  to  the  22d  canon,  which  enjoins  on  them 
diligence  in  catechetical  instruction  and  lectures.  The 
bishops  consider  these  as  among  the  most  important 
duties  of  clergymen,  and  among  the  most  effectual 
means  of  promoting  religious  knowledge  and  prac- 
tical piety. 

It  being  represented  to  the  house  of  bishops  by 
bishop  Hobart,  that  the  congregation  of  du  St.  Esprit 
in  the  city  of  New  York,  having  joined  the  commu- 
nion of  the  episcopal  church,  with  their  minister, 
who  had  lately  received  episcopal  ordination,  which 
congregation  consisted  originally  of  protestant  emi- 
grants from  France;  and  there  being  many  to  whom 
the  French  language  is  still  more  familiar  than 
the  English,  it  is  expedient  that  they  be  furnished 
with  the  Liturgy  in  the  former  language;  and  that 
there  is  such  a  Liturgy,  not  sanctioned  by  this  con- 
vention; it  was  recommended  to  the  said  bishop  to 


43 

cause  the  said  French  Liturgy  to  be  examined,  in 
order  to  ascertain  how  far  the  translation  is  correct; 
and  to  confirm  the  use  thereof,  with  such  amend- 
ments and  improvements  as  the  case  may  call  for; 
and  to  declare  it  to  be  the  Liturgy  which  may  be 
used  by  any  minister  of  this  church  who  may  offici- 
ate in  a  congregation  to  whom  the  French  language 
is  famihar. 

The  bishops  issued  the  following  call  on  the 
members  of  this  church;  and  sent  it  to  the  house  of 
clerical  and  lay  deputies,  to  be  there  read:  which 
was  accordingly  done: 

"  The  house  of  bishops,  solicitous  for  the  preser- 
vation of  the  purity  of  the  church,  and  the  piety  of 
its  members,  are  induced  to  impress  upon  the  clergy 
the  important  duty,  with  a  discreet  but  earnest  zeal, 
of  warning  the  people  of  their  respective  cures,  of 
the  danger  of  an  indulgence  in  those  worldly  plea- 
sures which  may  tend  to  withdraw  the  affections 
from  spiritual  things.  And  especially  on  the  subject  of 
gaming,  of  amusements  involving  cruelty  to  the  brute 
creation,  and  of  theatrical  representations,  to  which 
some  peculiar  circumstances  have  called  their  atten- 
tion,— they  do  not  hesitate  to  express  their  unani- 
mous opinion,  that  these  amusements,  as  well  from 
their  hcentious  tendency,  as  from  the  strong  temp- 
tations to  vice  which  they  aflford,  ought  not  to  be 
frequented.   And  the  bishops  cannot  refrain  from  ex- 
pressing their  deep  regret  at  the  information  that  in 
some  of  our  large  cities,  so  little  respect  is  paid  to 
the  feelings  of  the  members  of  the  church,  that  the- 


44 

atrical  representations  are  fixed  for  the  evenings  of 
her  most  solemn  festivals." 

On  the  question  referred  by  the  last  convention, 
to  be  reported  on  in  this,  relatively  to  the  copy-right 
of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer;  the  measure  was 
considered  as  disapproved  of,  so  far  as  opinion  could 
be  ascertained. 

A  proposed  change  in  the  ecclesiastical  constitu- 
tion, was  referred  to  the  several  state  conventions. 
It  was  to  change  the  time  of  the  triennial  meeting  to 
the  1st  Tuesday  in  October. 

The  house  of  clerical  and  lay  deputies  proposed 
to  the  house  of  bishops,  the  designating  of  a  standard 
copy  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  It  was  too 
late  to  enter  on  the  business,  and  "  the  house  of 
bishops  deeming  the  fulfilment  of  the  request  of  the 
house  of  clerical  and  lay  deputies,  on  the  subject  of  an 
authentic  edition  of  the  Holy  Bible,  a  matter  requir- 
ing very  serious  attention  and  deliberation,  resolve, 
that  its  members  will  give  such  attention  and  delibe- 
ration to  the  subject,  previously  to  the  next  meeting 
of  the  general  convention,  and  report  at  the  said 
meeting. 

The  table  of  degrees  of  consanguinity  and  affinity, 
prohibitory  of  marriage  was  again  referred;  and  a 
committee  was  appointed  on  the  subject,  bishops 
White,  Kemp,  and  Croes. 

There  passed  three  canons.  The  first  was  the 
limiting  of  the  operation  of  the  2d  and  37th  canons, 
so  lar  as  regarded  the  states  westward  of  the  moun- 
tains.   The  professed  reason,  was,  the  providing  of 


45 

that  country  with  a  bishop,  if  a  suitable  person  should 
be  presented,  whatever  might  be  the  number  of  resi- 
dent presbyters,  and  even  if  there  be  none.  There 
was  tlie  further  reason,  that  if  it  should  be  thought 
convenient  to  unite  with  a  western  diocess  the  west- 
ern counties  of  Pennsylvania  and  Virginia;  and  if 
there  should  be  the  consent  of  the  church  in  each 
of  the  said  states,  there  might  be  a  temporary  provi- 
sion for  the  purpose,  consistent  with  the  integrity  of 
the  church  in  each  state. 

The  second  canon  makes  a  clergyman^s  renun- 
ciation of  the  ministry  a  cause  of  admonition,  or  of 
suspension  or  of  degradation. 

The  third  canon  provided,  that  in  the  case  of 
expulsion  from  the  communion,  and  information 
given  to  the  bishop  as  required  by  the  second  rubric 
before  the  communion  service;  if  the  expelled  party 
make  no  complaint,  there  shall  be  no  inquiry  insti- 
tuted. The  bishop  on  receiving  complaint,  is  to  in- 
stitute an  inquiry,  and  the  notice  given  by  the  minis- 
ter is  a  sufficient  presentation. 

A  pastoral  letter  was  again  drawn  up  by  the 
house  of  bishops,  and  read  in  the  house  of  clerical 
and  lay  deputies. 

When  the  convention  adjourned,  Philadelphia 
was  appointed  to  be  the  place  of  the  next  meeting.  S. 


3.  ADDITIONAL  STATEMENTS 


AND 


REMARKS. 


A.  Page  7.   Of  the  Question  of  American  Episcopacy, 
as  agitated  in  the  Colonies. 

There  were  two  periods,  which  were  especiallj^ 
productive  of  pamphlets  and  newspaper  essays  on 
this  subject.  The  first  of  these  periods,  was  about 
the  time  of  the  civil  controversy,  which  arose  on  the 
occasion  of  the  stamp  act.  The  question  of  Ame- 
rican Episcopacy  was  brought  forward  in  a  pam- 
phlet by  the  Rev.  East  Apthorp,  missionary  at  Cam- 
bridge, Massachusetts;  a  native  of  that  province,  but 
afterwards  possessed  of  several  considerable  prefer- 
ments in  England.  His  production  was  answered 
by  Dr.  Mayhew,  a  congregational  minister  of  Bos- 
ton. Several  others  engaged  in  the  dispute;  among 
whom  was  Abp.  Seeker;  although  his  name  was  not 
prefixed  to  his  pamphlet,  which  has  been  since 
printed  in  his  works. 

The  other  period  was  a  few  years  before  the 
revolutionary  war;  when  the  Rev.  Dr.  Chandler  of 


48 

Elizabeth-Town,  New-Jersey,  made  an  appeal  to 
the  public,  in  favour  of  the  object  of  obtaining  an 
American  Episcopate.  There  were  various  answers 
to  the  pamphlet  and  defences  of  it,  in  other  pam- 
phlets published  by  the  Doctor  and  others.  In  addi- 
tion to  these,  the  newspapers  abounded  with  peri- 
odical and  other  productions.  The  author  of  the 
present  performance  was  at  that  time  a  youth:  but 
from  what  he  then  heard  and  observed,  he  beheves 
it  was  impossible  to  have  obtained  the  concurrence 
of  a  respectable  number  of  laymen,  in  any  measure 
for  the  obtaining  of  an  American  Bishop.  What 
could  have  been  the  reason  of  this,  when  there  was 
scarcely  a  member  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  who 
would  not  have  been  ready  to  avow  his  preference 
of  episcopacy  to  presbytery;  and  of  a  form  of  prayer, 
to  that  which  is  extemporary?  It  is  believed  to  have 
been  owing  to  an  existing  jealousy,  that  American 
Episcopacy  would  have  been  made  an  instrument  of 
enforcing  the  new  plan  of  civil  government,  which 
had  been  adopted  in  Great  Britain ;  in  contrariety  to 
original  compact  and  future  security  for  freedom:  a 
regard  to  which  was  as  prevalent  among  episcopa- 
lians, as  among  any  description  of  their  fellow-citi- 
zens. 

Perhaps  these  sentiments  may  be  supposed  to  be 
contradicted  by  the  circumstance,  that  during  the 
revolutionary  war,  a  considerable  number  of  the 
American  people  became  inclined  to  the  British 
cause;  and,  tliat  of  them,  a  great  proportion  were 
episcopalians.     But  this  is  not  inconsistent  witli  the 


49 

sentiments  exprei=ised.  On  the  subject  of  parliamen- 
tary taxation,  it  would  probably  have  been  impossi- 
ble to  have  found  in  any  city,  town,  or  vicinity  of  the 
colonies,  such  a  number  of  persons  not  vehemently 
opposed  to  it,  as  would  have  been  sufficient  to  form 
a  congregation.  Out  of  the  sphere  oi' governmental 
influence,  there  was  scarcely  a  man  of  that  descrip- 
tion. When  tlie  controveisy  became  ripened  into 
war,  some  fell  off  frojn  the  cause,  from  danger  to 
their  persons  and  their  properties;  others,  Irom  the 
sentiment  that  the  public  evil  hazarded,  might  prove 
w^orse  than  that  intended  to  be  avoided;  and  others 
perhaps,  although  very  few,  from  scruples  of  con- 
science. They  who  were  influenced  by  these,  had 
stopt  short  at  the  taking  of  arms;  for  which,  the  pas- 
sion was  general.  To  tind  freedom  in  this  step,  and 
yet  to  withdraw  while  the  cause  of  so  important  a 
measure  existed,  may  have  been  the  dictate  of  pru- 
dence, but  could  not  have  been  that  of  conscience. 
All  the  aforesaid  circumstances  operated  with  in- 
creased vigour,  when  the  question  of  independence 
was  forced  on  the  reluctant  public.  Had  the  British 
arms  succeeded,  and  thus  the  right  of  parliamentary 
taxation  been  established — for  there  w  as  no  offer  of 
relinquishment  of  it,  until  after  the  alliance  with 
France — a  membership  of  the  Episcopal  Church 
would  have  been  little  more  than  a  political  mark,  to 
distinguish  those  who  should  advocate  claims  hostile 
to  American  interests. 

To  persons  who  may  give  their  attention  to  the 
colonial  history,  the  question  may  occur — Why  did 

G 


50 

not  the  British  government  so  far  consult  its  own 
interests,  as  to  authorise  the  consecrating  of  bishops 
for  America?   This  question  shall  be  considered,  on 
the  ground  of  views  taken  of  past  incidents.     Any 
ministry,  who  should  have  ventured  on  the  measure, 
w^ould  have  raised  up  against  themselves  the  whole 
of  the  dissenting  interest  in  England;  and  the  weight 
of  that  interest  was  more  important  to  them  in  their 
estimation,   than  the   making  of  a   party  for  the 
mother  country  in  the  colonies.     The  matter  is  re- 
solveable  into  the  ignorance  of  government  of  the 
real  state  of  the  people,  whom  they  expected  to  go- 
vern so  easily,  at  so  great  a  distance.     Again,  this 
ignorance  is  resolveable  into  their  depending  on  in- 
formation received  from  persons,  whose  judgments 
or  whose  honesty  they  ought,  the  most  of  all,  to  have 
distrusted:  an  error,  which  hung  heavily  on  all  their 
proceedings,  until  the  period  when  it  ceased  to  be  of 
consequence. 

Lest  it  should  be  thought,  that  the  dissenting  in- 
terest in  England  has  been  magnified;  it  ought  to  be 
known,  that  the  forces  of  the  different  denomina- 
tions of  dissenters — with  the  exception  of  the  people 
called  quakers — was  concentrated  in  a  committee  in 
London.  The  author  was  acquainted  with  a  member 
of  that  committee  in  England,  in  1771  and  1772;  and 
knew  that  he  had  free  access  to  the  ministry.  The 
impression  then  received,  was  its  being  an  object  of 
government  to  avoid  any  thing  of  a  religious  nature, 
which  might  set  the  dissenters  in  a  political  opposi- 


51 

tion.     They  had  great  influence  in  elections  to  par- 
Hament. 

As  to  the  laity^s  uniting  in  an  application  for  the 
episcopacy;  it  is  natural  to  suppose,  that  this,  if  to  be 
found  any  where,  would  have  been  found  in  Vir- 
ginia; a  province  settled  by  members  of  the  Church 
of  England,  who  were  still  the  great  mass  of  its  in- 
habitants. How  far  they  were  from  favouring  the 
endeavour,  may  be  learned  from  the  following  state- 
ment. 

In  the  year  1771,  a  convention  of  twelve  clergy- 
men, there  being  about  a  hundred  in  the  province, 
and,  after  a  larger  convention  had  rejected  the  mea- 
sure now  adopted,  drew  up  a  petition  to  the  crown 
for  the  appointment  of  an  American  bishop.     Four 
of  the  clergy  protested;  and,  because  of  their  protest, 
received   the   thanks   of  the  house  of  Burgesses. 
When  it  is  considered,  that  a  great  majority  of  that 
house  must  have  been  of  the  establishment;  that 
there  never  had  been  any  attempt  among  them  to 
throw  off  any  property  of  its  distinctive  character; 
tliat  they  must  have  felt  the  want  of  ecclesiastical 
discipline  over  immoral  clergymen,  and  the  burthen 
of  sending  to  England  for  ordination;  there  seems 
no  way  of  accounting  for  their  conduct,  but  the  dan- 
ger resulting  from  the  newly  introduced  system  of 
colonial  government.     This  is  warranted  by  the  ab- 
surdity of  the  reasons  on  which  the  protest  of  the 
four  clergymen  was  bottomed;  among  which,  per- 
haps the  most  absurd,  was  professed  respect  for  the 
diocesan  authority  of  the  bishops  of  London:  it  be- 


52 

ing  notorious,  that  the  then  bishop  and  his  immedi- 
ate predecessors  had  manifested  zeal  for  the  appoint- 
ment now  opposed.  In  consequence  of  the  proceed- 
ing of  the  house  of  Burgesses,  a  convention  of  the 
clergy  of  New  York  and  New  Jersey  published  an 
address  to  the  episcopalians  in  Virginia,  drawn  up 
by  Dr.  Chandler.  It  must  be  evident  on  reading  the 
address,  that  the  reasoning  of  it  was  unanswerable; 
and  that,  as  the  address  expresses,  there  were  on  the 
other  side  "  only  unreasonable  jealousies  and  ground- 
less suspicions:"  unreasonable  and  groundless,  so 
far  as  they  were  declared,  and  referring  to  titles  to 
civil  offices,  and  the  like;  while  there  was  a  senti- 
ment silently  operating,  to  the  effect  above  stated. 
Whether  the  address  of  the  twelve  clergy  crossed 
the  Atlantic,  is  not  here  known.  This  was  to  de- 
pend on  its  being  signed  by  a  majority  of  the  clergy 
of  the  province;  which  was  probably  prevented  by 
the  public  sentiment.  It  is  remarkable,  that  of  the 
two  gentlemen  appointed  by  the  house  of  Burgesses 
to  deliver  their  thanks  to  the  four  protestors,  the  first 
named  of  them — Richard  Henry  Lee,  fifteen  years 
after,  and  then  president  of  congress,  did  not  hesi- 
tate to  furnish  to  the  two  bishops  who  went  for  con- 
secration, a  certificate  that  the  business  on  which 
they  went  was  consistent  with  the  civil  institutions 
of  the  American  republic* 

*  For  the  correctness  of  the  opinion  expressed  of  the  utter 
inability  of  the  British  administrations  for  the  government  of 
the  colonies,  there  may  be  here  a  reference  to  Bisset's  History 
of  the  Reign  of  George  III.     This  author  wrote  in  opposition 


53 

Certain  it  is,  that  no  endeavours  for  a  lay  peti- 
tion for  episcopacy  were  made.  Some  accounted 
for  this,  on  tiie  principle,  that  as  the  wished  for 
bishop  would  have  a  relation  to  the  clergy  only,  the 
matter  concerned  them  and  none  others.  But  what 
sort  of  a  bishop  would  he  have  been;  who  should 
have  had  no  relation  to  the  laity,  except  through  the 
medium  of  the  clergy?  The  well-informed  advocates 
for  episcopacy,  must  doubtless  have  known  the  im- 
perfection of  such  a  scheme:  but  they  who  suggested 
the  proviso,  must  have  considered  it  as  a  prudential 
expedient. 

Had  bishops  been  consecrated  for  America,  on 
the  plan  proposed  by  Archbishop  Seeker;  the  civil 
government  no  further  interfering  than  in  the  grant 
of  the  royal  permission;  it  is  difficult  to  perceive, 
how  hindrance  could  have  been  attempted  by  any 
description  of  persons,  without  an  avowal  of  intoler- 
ance; and  without  a  disposition  to  unprovoked  insur- 
rection, beyond  what  can  be  supposed  from  any  thing 
that  passed  of  a  political  description.  That  good 
prelate^s  scheme  is  unfolded  in  his  letter  to  Mr.  Wal- 
pole,  printed  among  the  prelate's  works.  From  the 
circumstance,  that,  since  the  revolution,  an  act  of 
parliament  was  held  necessary  to  permit  the  giving 

to  Belsham,  and  may  therefore  be  supposed  on  the  whole  fa- 
vourable to  government.  But  he  points  out  with  candour  the 
contrariety  between  the  views  of  ministers,  and  the  conse- 
quences of  their  acts — evidently  bottomed  on  false  information, 
and  their  relying  on  the  persons  whom  they  ought  the  most  to 
have  disti'usted. 


54 

of  a  beginning  to  the  American  succession,  it  may 
be  thought,  that  the  archbishop  was  mistaken,  in  his 
opinion  of  the  sufficiency  of  the  hcence  of  the  king. 
But  this  would  not  be  a  correct  inference.  The  case 
became  altered  by  the  event  of  American  indepen- 
dence: and  although  there  was  legislative  interfer- 
ence in  regard  to  the  church  in  the  United  States; 
there  have  been  bishops  consecrated  for  Nova  Scotia 
and  Canada,  on  royal  authority  only;  agreeably  to 
the  opinion  which  had  been  expressed  by  Archbishop 
Seeker.  On  the  ground  of  the  practicability  of  giving 
bishops  to  America,  without  invoking  the  aid  of  par- 
liament; it  was  the  opinion  of  the  author,  at  the  time 
of  the  controversy  here  noticed,  that  no  disturbance 
would  have  happened,  however  threatened  by  some 
who  were  indeed  very  violent  on  the  subject. 

But  he  is  not  backward  to  acknowledge,  that 
he  thought  he  foresaw  difficulties  to  the  episcopal 
church,  from  the  other  source  here  hinted.  It  was 
not  unlikely,  that  the  British  government,  had  they 
sanctioned  an  episcopacy  in  the  colonies,  would 
have  endeavoured  to  render  it  subservient  to  the  sup- 
port of  a  party,  on  the  plan  of  the  newly  projected 
domination.  In  this  case,  the  effects  would  have 
been  hostile  to  the  estimation  of  episcopacy  in  the 
minds  of  the  people;  the  great  mass  of  whom,  in- 
cluding the  best  informed,  and  those  who  had  the 
property  of  the  country  in  their  hands,  had  set  them- 
selves in  a  determined,  and,  as  the  author  thinks,  a 
justifiable  opposition  to  the  new  system. 


55 

It  is  well  known,  that  religious  opinion  has  been 
often  made,  by  circumstances,  the  test  and  the  in- 
strument of  a  political  party;  when  the  views  of  the 
party  had  not  any  more  natural  connexion  with  the 
opinion,  than  witli  its  opposite.     Thus,  in  England, 
Arniinianism  was  conceived  of  as  allied  to  absolute 
monarchy,  and  Calvinism  to  popular  privilege;  at 
the  same  time  that,  in  the  United  Netherlands,  the 
latter  supported  the  monarchical,  and  the  former  the 
republican  branch  of  the  constitution.     The  griev- 
ances which  produced  the  American  war,  were  the 
result  of  claims  of  one  people  over  another;  and  not 
of  the  question,  as  to  what  would  be  the  wisest  dis- 
tribution of  the  internal  powers  of  either.     Besides, 
it  may  be  remarked,  that  episcopacy,  as  now  settled 
in  America,  must  be  confessed  at  least  as  analogous 
as  presbytery — the  author  thinks  much  more  so — 
to  the  plan  of  civil  government,  which  mature  deh- 
beration  has  established  over  the  union ;  and  to  those 
plans  which,  even  during  the  heats  of  popular  com- 
motion, were  adopted  for  the  individual  states.    The 
sentiment  wished  to  be  here  impressed,  is,  that  epis- 
copacy, under  the  old  regimen,  would  have  probably 
been  considered  as  subservient  to  an  authority,  of  the 
decline  and  final  abrogation  of  which  there  were 
causes,  which  must  have  produced  their  effect  at 
last;  if  the  effect  had  not  been  hastened  much  faster 
than  could  have  been  expected,  by  intemperate  coun- 
sels and  by  injudicious  measures. 

It  would  be  a  misinterpretation  of  what  the  au- 
thor has  here  written;  were  it  applied  as  a  censure 


56 

on  what  some  of  his  brethren,  who  were  before  him, 
have  advanced  in  favour  of  their  rigiit  to  an  episco- 
pate. Far  from  this,  he  honours  their  memories; 
and  considers  the  arguments  on  which  they  rested 
their  claim,  as  unanswerable.  What  has  been  said, 
is  merely  an  argument  from  certain  causes  existing 
in  the  character  and  the  circumstances  of  the  Ameri- 
can people,  to  what  would  have  been  the  effects  in  a 
supposed  case,  which  did  not  occur. 

It  may  be  thought,  that  there  should  be  allowed 
a  large  deduction  from  the  weight  of  the  observations 
made,  on  account  of  the  proportion  of  the  American 
people,  whose  conduct  or  whose  wishes  were  in  con- 
trariety to  the  general  sentiment  of  their  country- 
men. But  this  is  apparent  only.  There  were  no 
persons  more  hostile  to  the  British  claims,  than  they 
who  withdrew  Irom  the  resistance  of  them :  this  with 
very  few  exceptions.  When  the  controversy  issued 
in  war,  and  afterwards  in  independence;  at  each  of 
the  periods  there  was  a  large  defection  from  the 
American  cause,  produced  by  the  motives  which  have 
been  detailed. 

No  doubt,  the  number  of  dissentients  was  in- 
creased by  unjustifiable  measures  of  the  newly  erect- 
ed governments  in  some  of  the  states.  Still,  the  sen- 
timent was  universal,  of  the  sacred  nature  of  the 
rights  invaded;  and  would  again  have  had  its  effect 
on  the  minds  of  the  temporary  advocates  of  Great 
Britain,  had  the  war  terminated  in  her  favour. 

Further;  the  opinions  here  expressed  may  seem 
indicative  of  aversion  to  the  British  character,  in  the 


57 

author's  mind.  Far  from  entertaining  any  such  aver- 
sion, he  prefers  the  laws  and  the  manners  of  the 
Britisli  nation,  to  those  of  any  other;  either  from  par- 
tiality to  the  country  of  his  ancestors;  or,  as  he  be- 
lieves, in  consequence  of  an  impartial  coujparison. 
But  he  reasons  on  the  princi})le,  which  he  thinks 
warranted  by  the  experience  of  all  ages,  that  national 
domination,  under  whatever  circumstances,  will  be 
tyranny.  An  individual  may  be  a  tyrant,  or  other- 
wise, according  to  his  personal  character:  but  no 
people  ever  stuck  at  any  crimes,  which  advanced 
tlieir  wealth  at  the  expense  of  those  governed  by 
them ;  especially,  if  it  were  at  a  distance. 

In  short,  however  great  the  inconveniences  brought 
on  the  episcopal  cliurch  in  America  by  the  revolu- 
tion; the  author  has  all  along  cherished  the  hope,  that 
they  will  not  be  permanently  so  injurious  to  her,  as 
would  have  been  her  alliance  with  a  distant  power, 
in  hostility  to  the  common  interests  of  the  country; 
accompanied  by  the  jealousies  and  the  odium,  which 
would  have  been  attached  to  that  circumstance. 

Perhaps,  it  may  be  thought,  that  a  deduction 
should  be  made  from  any  apparent  weight  in  the 
theory  here  delivered,  on  account  of  the  establish- 
ments existing  in  Maryland  and  Virginia:  which 
would  not  have  been  overset  by  the  British  govern- 
ment. The  subsequently  prostrate  condition  of  the 
church  in  these  states,  may  be  urged  as  a  proof  of 
the  advantages  which  would  have  attended  a  con- 
tinuance of  the  establishment.  But  this  reasoning  is 
inadmissible;  if,  as  before  supposed,  the  prostration 

H 


58 

was  owing  to  the  preceding  system;  of  an  amend- 
ment of  which  there  was  no  prospect.  Besides,  it 
should  be  remembered,  that  before  the  revolution, 
the  parts  of  those  states,  now  the  most  populous, 
were  fast  settling  by  persons  differing  from  the  es- 
tablishment. Even  in  the  old  parts,  numbers  were 
leaving  the  church,  to  attend  the  ministrations  of 
preachers,  who  had  recently  availed  themselves  of 
the  very  little  regard  entertained  for  their  clergy,  to 
produce  a  popular  desertion  of  the  church  itself 
Under  such  circumstances,  it  was  hardly  to  be  ex- 
pected, that  the  establishment  would  have  redounded 
to  the  reputation  and  the  increase  of  the  church  ge- 
nerally. It  was  becoming  more  and  more  unpopu- 
lar; with  some,  because  it  was  not  considered  as  pro- 
moting piety;  and  with  these  and  others,  because  they 
thought  the  provision  for  it  a  useless  burthen  on  the 
community.* 

*  On  the  question  of  burthen,  as  detached  from  all  other 
considerations,  there  is  a  fallacy  not  generally  perceived.  Un- 
der the  present  system,  if  the  Gospel  should  be  supported  in  the 
states  concerned,  as  may  now  be  confidently  expected,  the 
weight  of  the  expense  will  fall  disproportionably  on  people  of 
moderate  means.  During  the  establishment,  it  fell  on  the  rich, 
in  tolerable  proportion  to  their  wealth. 

There  is  another  fallacy  in  this  business,  in  the  reproach 
brought  on  the  church;  when  it  ought  to  have  fallen  on  the  want 
of  wisdom  in  the  making  of  ministerial  endowments,  without 
some  provision  for  ministerial  fidelity. 

Hence,  however,  a  great  proportion  of  the  unpopularity,  which 
led  to  the  seizure  and  the  sale  of  churches  and  glebes  by  the 
legislature  of  Virginia.  It  ought  to  be  remembered,  to  the  ho- 
nour of  Patrick  Henry,  that  he  resisted  the  said  act,  and  that  it 


59 

There  is  a  remarkable  fact  in  Virginia,  counte- 
nancing the  sentiments  dehvered.  After  the  fall  of 
the  establishment,  a  considerable  proportion  of  the 
clergy  continued  to  enjoy  the  glebes — the  law  con- 
sidering them  as  freeholds  during  life — without 
performing  a  single  act  of  sacred  duty:  except,  per- 
haps, that  of  marriage.  They  knew,  that  their  pub- 
lic ministrations  would  not  have  been  attended. 


B.  Page  8.  Of  tJw  Qiiestion  of  using  the  Liturgy, 
exclusively  of  the  Prayers  for  the  King  and  the 
Royal  Family. 

As  the  cessation  of  the  public  worship  of  the 
episcopal  church  was  very  much  ow  ing  to  scruples 
on  this  point;  it  may  be  thought  important,  in  refer- 
ence to  such  future  political  changes,  as  are  rendered 
possible  by  the  uncertainty  of  human  affairs. 

could  never  be  obtained  until  after  his  decease.  This  eminent 
man  has  been  accused,  of  having  always  set  his  sail  to  the  popu- 
lar gale.  There  are  several  facts  against  the  charge,  and  this 
is  one  of  them:  for  he  had  to  resist,  through  many  years,  the 
united  efforts  of  men  hostile  to  revealed  religion  in  every 
form,  and  of  other  men  who  were  professors  of  religion,  but 
cherished  rancorous  hatred  against  the  church  of  England  in 
particular. 

The  author  is  the  more  free  in  speaking  of  the  act  of  the 
legislature  of  Virginia,  as  it  will  go  do^\^l  to  posterity,  loaded 
with  the  reproach  of  unconstitutionality,  by  the  supreme  court 
of  the  United  States:  although  their  judgment  Avill  have  no  effect 
beyond  the  district  of  Columbia.    See  Cranch's  Reports.  Vol.  9. 


60 

So  far  as  the  author  knows  or  beheves,  the  diffi- 
culties which  arose  on  this  account  were  not  of  great 
extent  in  the  southern  states.  In  Maryland  and  in 
Virginia,  there  were  many  of  the  clergy  whose  con- 
nexions with  their  flocks  were  rendered,  by  their 
personal  characters,  dependent  wholly  on  the  con- 
tinuance of  the  establishment;  and,  of  course  fell  with 
it.  Again,  many  worthy  ministers  entertained  scru- 
ples, in  regard  to  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  States, 
without  the  taking  of  which,  they  were  prohibited 
from  officiating,  by  laws  alike  impolitic  and  severe. 
But  it  must  be  seen,  that  scruples  of  this  sort  were 
of  another  nature  than  the  question  here  stated  for 
consideration.  In  the  northern  states,  there  were  no 
such  laws;  but  the  clergy  generally  declined  offici- 
ating, on  the  ground  of  their  ecclesiastical  tie  to  the 
liturgy  of  the  church  of  England.  As  they  were  ge- 
nerally men  of  respectable  characters,  the  discontin- 
uance of  their  administrations  had  an  unhappy  effect 
on  the  church;  and  is  here  mentioned,  as  one  cause 
contributing  to  the  low  state  in  which  we  were  left 
by  the  revolutionary  war. 

With  all  possible  tenderness  to  the  plea  of  con- 
scientious scruples,  it  will  not  be  rash  to  affirm,  that 
there  was  no  ground  for  them  in  the  promise — not 
an  oath,  as  some  suppose,  although  of  equal  solem- 
nity— made  previously  to  ordination  in  the  church  of 
England.  It  is  as  Ibllovvs:  The  candidate  declares 
— "  That  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  and  of  order- 
ing of  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,  containeth  in  it 
nothing  contrary  to  the  Word  of  God;  and  that  it  may 


61 

lawfully  so  be  used;  and  that  he  himself  will  use  the 
form  in  the  said  Book  prescribed,  in  public  prayer 
and  administration  of  the  sacraments,  and  no  other." 

This  promise  ought  to  be  taken  in  connexion 
with  the  pastoral  duty  generally;  and  with  the  dis- 
charaje  of  it  as  stipulated  for  in  the  promises  made  at 
ordination;  which  require  of  the  minister  the  reading 
of  the  prayers,  and  the  administration  of  the  sacra- 
ments. 

But  there  occurs  a  case,  in  which  there  is  an  ex- 
ternal necessity  of  omitting  a  few  petitions,  not  in- 
volved in  any  Christian  duty;  so  far  as  civil  rulers 
are  identified  by  name,  or  other  personal  description. 
In  such  a  case,  it  seems  evident,  that  the  promise  is 
the  most  nearly  compUed  with,  by  the  use  of  the 
liturgy  to  the  extent  which  the  external  necessity 
permits. 

When  the  Church  of  England  was  oppressed  un- 
der the  usurpations  of  parhament  and  of  Cromwell; 
the  clergy  were  molested  in  the  use  of  the  liturgy, 
because  it  was  made  illegal  by  act  of  parliament.  But 
wherever  the  use  of  it  was  winked  at,  of  which  there 
are  instances  on  record,  they  did  not  hesitate  to  avail 
themselves  of  the  indulgence,  with  the  exception 
of  the  political  prayers;  the  use  of  which  would  have 
been  highly  penal. 

For  the  communication  with  the  court  of  Den- 
mark, as  contained  in  the  Narrative,  see  Appendix. 
No.  1. 


62 


C.  Page  11.    Of  the  Meeting  in  JVew- Brunswick,  m 
May,  1784. 

The  first  communications,  between  the  clergy  of 
different  stales,  were  at  this  meeting.  It  took  its 
rise,  from  a  previous  agreement  between  those  of  the 
city  of  New  York  and  those  of  Philadelphia,  carried 
on  through  the  medium  of  the  Rev.  Abraham  Beach, 
then  resident  in  or  near  Brunswick.  The  substance 
of  what  passed  is  as  follows: 

There  met,  from  the  state  of  New  York,  the  Rev. 
Messrs,  Bloomer,  Benjamin  Moore,  and  Thomas 
Moore;  from  New  Jersey,  the  Rev.  Messrs.  Beach, 
Fraser,  and  Ogden;  and  from  Pennsylvania,  the  Rev. 
Dr.  White,  Dr.  Magaw,  and  Mr.  Blackwell.  There 
happened  to  be  in  the  town,  on  civil  business,  some 
lay-gentlemen,  who,  being  represented  by  the  clergy 
from  New  York  and  New  Jersey  as  taking  an  in- 
terest in  the  welfare  of  the  church,  were  requested 
to  attend.  They  were  Mr.  John  Stephens,  Mr. 
Richard  Stephens,  Mr.  Richard  Dennis,  and  Mr. 
Hiet.  The  author  presided  at  the  meeting,  and  open- 
ed it  with  a  sermon.     Mr.  B.  Moore  was  secretary. 

The  first  day  was  chiefly  taken  up,  with  discuss- 
ing principles  of  ecclesiastical  union.  The  clergy 
from  Philadelphia  read  to  the  assembly  the  principles 
just  before  adopted,  under  appointments  of  their  ves- 
tries, as  will  be  related  hereafter;  and  strongly  recom- 
mended their  taking  of  similar  measures.    The  next 


63 

morning,  the  author  was  taken  aside,  bclbre  the  meet- 
ing, by  Mr.  Benjamin  Moore;  who  expressed  the 
wish  of  himself  and  others,  that  nothing  should  be 
urged  further  on  the  subject;  as  they  found  them- 
selves peculiarly  circumstanced,  in  consequence  of 
their  having  joined  the  clergy  of  Connecticut  in  their 
application  tor  the  consecration  of  a  bishop.  This 
brought  to  the  knowledge  of  the  clergy  from  Phila- 
delphia, what  they  had  not  known,  that  Dr.  Samuel 
Seabury  of  the  state  of  New  York,  who  had  sailed 
for  England  just  before  the  evacuation  of  New  York 
by  the  British  troops,  carried  with  him  a  petition  to 
the  English  bishops  for  his  consecration. 

In  consequence  of  the  measure  taken  as  above 
stated,  the  gentlemen  concerned  in  it  thought,  that 
during  the  pending  of  their  application,  they  could 
not  consistently  join  in  any  proceedings,  which  might 
be  construed  to  interfere  with  it.  Accordingly,  the 
conversation  of  that  day — on  which  the  meeting 
ended — was  principally  confined  to  the  business  of 
the  revival  of  the  corporation  for  the  relief  of  the 
widows  and  the  children  of  the  clergy;  which  had  been 
held  out,  as  an  additional  object  of  the  interview.* 
But  before  the  clergy  parted,  it  was  agi'eed  to  pro- 
cure as  general  a  meeting  as  might  be,  of  represen- 
tatives of  the  clergy  and  of  the  laity  of  the  different 
states,  in  the  city  of  New  York,  on  the  6th  of  Octo- 
ber following.     The  gentlemen  of  New  York  were 

*  This  corporation,  by  mutual  consent,  and  with  a  fair  par- 
tition of  the  funds,  has  since  resolved  itself  into  three  corpora- 
tions, under  charters  from  the  three  states. 


64 

to  notify  the  brethren  eastward;  and  those  of  Phila- 
delphia were  to  do  the  same  southward. 

The  author  remarked  at  this  meeting,  that,  not- 
withstanding the  good  humour  which  prevailed  at  it, 
the  more  northern  clergymen  were  under  apprehen- 
sions of  there  being  a  disposition  on  the  part  of  the 
more  southern,  to  make  material  deviation  from  the 
ecclesiastical  system  of  England,  in  the  article  of 
church  government.  At  the  same  time  he  wondered, 
that  any  sensible  and  well  informed  persons  should 
overlook  the  propriety  of  accommodating  that  sys- 
tem, in  some  respects,  to  the  prevailing  sentiments 
and  habits  of  the  people  of  this  country;  now  become 
an  independent  and  combined  commonwealth. 

For  the  application  of  the  clergy  of  Connecticut 
to  the  archbishop  of  York,  the  English  primacy  hav- 
ing become  vacant,  and  the  successor  to  it  being  not 
yet  known  in  America;  see  Appendix  No.  2. 


D.  Page  11.    Of  the  Meeting  in  JVew  York,  in  Oc- 
tober 1784. 

There  were  present  from  Massachusetts,  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Parker;  from  Connecticut,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Mar- 
shall; from  New  York,  the  Rev.  Messrs.  Provoost, 
Reach,  R.  Moore,  Rloomer,  Cutting,  T.  Moore,  and 
the  Hon.  James  Duane,  Marinus  Willet,  and  J. 
Alsop,  Esquires;  from  New  Jersey,  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Ogden,  and  John  De  Hart,  John  Chetvvood,  Esquires, 
and  Mr.  Samuel  Spragg;  from  Pennsylvania,  the  Rev. 


65 

Drs.  White  and  Magaw,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hutch  ins,  and 
Matthew  Clarkson,  Richard  Wilhng,  Samuel  Powell, 
and  Richard  Peters,  Esquires;  from  Delaware,  the 
Rev.  Messrs.  Thorne  and  Wharton,  and  IMr.  Robert 
Clay;  from  Maryland,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Smith;  and  from 
Virginia,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Griffith.  The  Rev.  Dr.  Smith 
presided,  and  the  Rev.  B.  Moore  was  secretaiy.  The 
names  of  the  members  are  set  down,  because  they 
do  not  appear  on  the  subsequent  journals;  and  be- 
cause the  short  printed  account  of  the  proceedings 
of  this  meeting  was  in  very  few  hands  at  the  time, 
and  is  probably  at  this  time  generally  destroyed  or 
lost. 

The  present  meeting,  like  that  in  May,  is  here 
spoken  of  as  a  voluntary  one,  and  not  an  authorized 
convention:  because  there  were  no  authorities  Irom 
the  churches  in  the  several  states,  even  in  the  ap- 
pointments of  the  members;  which  were  made  from 
the  congregations,  to  which  they  respectively  be- 
longed; except  of  Mr.  Parker,  froni  Massachusetts, 
of  Mr.  Marshall,  from  Connecticut,  and  of  those  who 
attended  from  Pennsylvania:  even  from  these  states, 
there  was  no  further  authority,  than  to  deliberate  and 
propose.  Accordingly,  the  acts  of  the  body  were  in 
the  form  of  recommendation  and  proposal. 

The  principles  of  ecclesiastical  union,  recom- 
mended at  the  meeting,  September  1784,  are  as  fol- 
lows: 

1st.  That  there  shall  be  a  general  convention 
of  the  episcopal  church,  in  the  United  States  of 
America. 


66 

2d.  That  the  episcopal  church,  in  each  state, 
send  deputies  to  the  convention,  consisting  of  clergy 
a«d  laity. 

3d.  That  associated  congregations,  in  two  or  more 
states,  may  send  deputies  jointly. 

4th.  That  the  said  church  shall  maintain  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Gospel,  as  now  held  by  the  church  of 
Ensfland;  and  shall  adhere  to  the  liturgy  of  the  said 
church,  as  far  as  shall  be  consistent  with  the  Ame- 
rican revolution,  and  the  constitutions  of  the  respec- 
tive states. 

.5th.  That  in  every  state,  where  there  shall  be  a 
bishop  duly  consecrated  and  settled,  he  shall  be  con- 
sidered as  a  member  of  the  convention  ex  officio. 

6th.  That  the  clergy  and  laity,  assembled  in  con- 
vention, shall  deliberate  in  one  body;  but  shall  vote 
separately:  and  the  concurrence  of  both  shall  be 
necessary,  to  give  validity  to  every  measure. 

7th.  That  the  first  meeting  of  the  convention 
shall  be  at  Piiiladelphia,  the  Tuesday  before  the 
feast  of  St.  Michael  next;  to  which  it  is  hoped,  and 
earnestly  desired,  that  the  episcopal  churches  in  the 
several  states  will  send  their  clerical  and  lay  deputies, 
duly  instructed  and  authorised  to  proceed  on  the 
necessary  business  herein  proposed  for  their  deli- 
beration. 

The  above  resolves  were,  in  substance,  what  had 
been  determined  on  in  Pennsylvania,  in  May;  and 
after  having  been  discussed  and  accommodated  in  a 
committee,  were  adopted  by  the  assembly. 


67 

It  is  proper  to  remark,  that  although  a  clergy- 
man appeared  at  this  meeting,  on  the  part  of  the 
church  in  Connecticut,  it  is  not  to  be  thought,  that 
there  was  an  obligation  on  any  in  that  state,  to  sup- 
port the  above  principles;  because  Mr.  Marshall  read 
to  the  assembly  a  pai)er,  which  expressed  his  being 
only  empowered  to  announce,  that  the  clergy  of  Con- 
necticut had  taken  measures  lor  the  obtaining  of  an 
episcopate;  that  until  their  design,  in  that  particular, 
should  be  accomplished,  they  could  do  nothing;  but 
that  as  soon  as  they  should  have  succeeded,  they 
would  come  forward,  with  their  bishop,  for  the  do- 
ing of  what  the  general  interests  of  the  church  might 
require. 

With  this  exception,  the  principles  laid  down  ap- 
peared to  be  the  sense  of  the  meeting:  and  it  seemed 
a  great  matter  gained,  to  lay  what  promised  to  be  a 
foundation  for  the  continuing  of  the  episcopal  church, 
in  the  leading  points  of  her  doctrine,  discipline,  and 
worship;  yet  with  such  an  accommodation  to  local 
circumstances,  as  might  be  expected  to  secure  the 
concurrence  of  the  great  body  of  her  members;  and 
without  any  exterior  opposition,  to  threaten  the  over- 
setting of  the  scheme. 

At  the  present  day,  it  may  seem  to  have  been  of 
little  consequence,  to  gain  so  considerable  an  assent, 
to  what  was  determined  at  this  meeting.  But  at  the 
time  in  question,  when  the  crisis  presented  a  subject 
of  deliberation  entirely  new,  it  was  difficult  to  detach 
it  in  the  minds  of  many,  from  a  past  habitual  train 
of  thinking.     Some  were  startled  at  the  very  cir- 


68 

cumstance,  of  taking  the  stand  of  an  independent 
church.  There  was  a  much  more  common  preju- 
dice, against  the  embracing  of  the  laity  in  a  scheme 
of  ecclesiastical  legislation.  Besides  these  things, 
the  confessed  necessity  of  accommodating  the  ser- 
vice to  the  newly  established  civil  constitution  of  the 
country,  naturally  awakened  apprehensions  of  un- 
limited licence.  Hence  the  restriction  to  the  English 
liturgy,  except  in  accommodation  to  the  revolution: 
which  restriction  was  not  acquiesced  in,  as  will  be 
seen. 


E .  Page  1 2 .  Of  Proceedings  in  sundry  states,  previous 
to  the  Meetings  in  1 784,  at  JSew  Brunswick,  and  at 
JVeiv  York. 

As  this  convention  acted  by  delegation,  an  ac- 
count of  the  said  proceedings  seems  to  form  a  part 
of  the  present  work. 

The  principles  agreed  on,  at  the  said  meetings, 
were  analogous  to  those  in  the  several  states;  with 
the  exception  of  what  was  done  by  the  clergy  indi- 
vidually, in  Connecticut. 

In  iViassachusetts  there  was  held  a  meeting  of 
the  clergy  at  Boston,  September  8, 1784.  In  a  letter 
received  by  the  author  from  the  Rev.  Mr.  Parker  at 
the  time,  it  appears,  that  the  principal  business  of 
this  meeting  was  the  passing  of  the  following  re- 
solves; which  have  evidently  an  allusion  to  what  had 
been  done  in  Philadelphia  iu  the  preceding  May;  and 


69 

eominiinicated  to  Mr.  Parker.  The  articles  agreed 
on  in  Pliiladelphia,  will  appear  lower  down. 

Those  of  Boston  are, 

1st,  That  the  episcopal  church  in  the  United 
States  of  America  is,  and  ought  to  be  independent  of 
all  foreign  authority,  ecclesiastical  and  civil.  But  it  is 
the  opinion  of  this  convention,  that  this  independence 
be  not  construed  or  taken  in  so  rigorous  a  sense,  as 
to  exclude  the  churches  in  America,  separately  or 
collectively,  from  applying  for  and  obtaining  from 
some  regular  episcopal  foreign  power,  an  American 
episcopate. 

2dly,  That  the  episcopal  church  in  these  states 
hath  and  ought  to  have,  in  common  with  all  other 
religious  societies,  full  and  exclusive  powers  to  regu- 
late the  concerns  of  its  own  communion. 

3dly,  That  the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel  be  main- 
tained, as  now  professed  by  the  church  of  England; 
and  uniformity  of  worship  be  continued,  as  near  as 
may  be  to  the  Liturgy  of  the  said  church. 

4thly,  That  the  succession  of  the  ministry  be 
agreeable  to  the  usage,  which  requireth  the  three 
orders  of  bishops,  priests  and  deacons;  that  the  rights 
and  powers  of  the  same  be  respectively  ascertained; 
and  that  they  be  exercised  according  to  reasonable 
laws,  to  be  duly  made. 

5thly,  That  the  power  of*  making  canons  and 
laws  be  vested  solely  in  a  representative  body  of  the 
cleigy  and  the  laity  conjointly;  in  which  body,  the 
laity  ought  not  to  exceed,  or  their  votes  be  more  in 
number,  than  those  of  the  clergy. 


70 

6thly,  That  no  power  be  delegated  to  a  general 
ecclesiastical  government;  except  such  as  cannot 
conveniently  be  exercised  by  the  clergy  and  vestries, 
in  their  respective  congregations. 

The  only  points  in  which  the  above  differ  from 
those  v^'hich  will  be  recorded,  as  laid  down  in  Phila- 
delphia, are,  that  in  the  former,  they  provide  for  an 
application  to  a  foreign  quarter;  which  was  agreeable 
to  intentions  entertained  in  framing  the  latter,  al- 
though not  expressed;  and  that  in  the  fifth  article  of 
the  former  it  is  specified,  that  the  clergy  and  the  laity 
ought  to  have  an  equal  vote.  This  matter  was  after- 
wards settled  to  mutual  satisfaction,  in  the  meeting 
at  New  York.  It  is  here  taken  notice  of,  because 
there  was  afterwards  manifested  a  disposition  in 
Massachusetts,  to  depart  from  the  principles  agreed 
on ;  that  the  clergy  of  that  state,  instead  of  sending  a 
deputation  to  Fhiladephia  in  September,  1785,  held  a 
meeting  of  their  own  about  the  same  time  in  Boston, 
in  which  they  made  considerable  alterations  in  the 
Liturgy.  Although  they  doubtless  acted  agreeably  to 
what  seemed  best  to  them  at  the  different  times;  yet 
this  fluctuation  of  counsels  is  recorded,  lest  the  latter 
measure,  contemplated  singly,  should  seem  to  do 
away  the  weight  of  the  principles  antecedently  es- 
tabhshed. 

In  Connecticut,  there  was  a  meeting  of  the  cler- 
gy, in  March  1783;  the  principal  measure  of  which, 
was  the  recommending  of  Dr.  Samuel  Seabury  to 
the  English  bishops,  for  consecration.  This  was  an 
act  of  the  clergy  generally  in  that  state,  and  of  a  few 


71 

in  New  York;  and  is  rat'ifr  to  be  considered  as  done 
by  them  in  their  individii;^!  capacities,  than  as  a  re- 
gular ecclesiastical  proceeding;  because,  as  yet,  there 
had  not  been  any  organized  assembly,  who  could 
claim  the  power  of  acting  for  the  church  in  conse- 
quence of  either  the  express  or  the  implied  consent  of 
the  body  of  episcopalians.  They  who  consider  the 
bisiiop  of  a  diocess,  as  related  to  its  clergy  alone, 
may  diflfer  from  the  author  in  this  remark.  But  al- 
though he  has  heard  such  an  opinion  advanced  in  con- 
versation, and  even  remembers  it  to  have  been  some- 
times published  in  the  former  controversies  concern- 
ing American  episcopacy;  yet,  it  is  so  evidently  con- 
trary to  the  system  as  gathered  from  Scripture,  and 
primitive  antiquity,  that  he  does  not  suppose  it  will 
be  maintained  in  deliberate  argument.  His  recording 
of  this  circumstance  is  not  designed,  either  in  dispa- 
ragement ot  the  personal  character  of  bishop  Sea- 
bury,  or  as  doubting  of  the  approbation  of  the  mea- 
sure by  the  whole  church,  in  which  he  has  since 
presided.  In  regard  to  the  former,  the  author  enter- 
tained for  that  bishop  much  affection  and  respect; 
the  result  of  what  was  afterwards  perceived  in  per- 
son, of  his  good  sense  and  christian  disposition.  As 
to  the  latter,  it  is  behoved  from  what  has  been  since 
learned,  that  no  man  could  have  been  more  accept- 
able; independently  on  the  inclination  said  to  have 
been  afterwards  manifested,  of  leaving  all  ecclesias- 
tical matters  to  the  clergy:  which  was  done  for  a 
wliile;  although  the  laity  have  been  since  introduced 
into  the  convention,  as  in  the  other  states.   But  the 


72 

subject  is  here  noticed,  as  one  cause  accounting  for 
the  failure  of  the  application  in  England:  a  sentiment 
confirmed  by  subsequent  information,  as  will  appear 
in  its  proper  place. 

From  letters  in  possession  «f  the  author,  he  finds, 
that  in  Connecticut,  the  idea  of  lay  representation  in 
ecclesiastical  legislation,  became  associated  with  that 
of  the  trial  and  the  degradation  of  clergymen  by  the 
same  authority.  That  there  is  no  such  necessary 
association,  is  evident  in  the  English  system. 

In  Pennsylvania,  there  was  a  convention  of  the 
church,  which  began  on  the  24th  of  May,  1784. 
The  steps  leading  to  this  convention  were  originated 
by  the  author,  in  the  vestry  of  the  churches  under  his 
parochial  care,  in  consequence  of  a  previous  agree- 
ment with  the  Rev.  Dr.  Magaw,  the  rector  of  St. 
Paul's  church,  and  the  Rev.  Mr.  Rlackwell,  assistant 
minister  to  the  author.  The  said  vestry  opened  a 
communication  on  the  subject,  with  the  vestry  of  St. 
Paul's  church:  and  by  agreement  of  these  two  bodies, 
in  conjunction  with  their  clergy,  notices  were  given, 
and  suitable  measures  were  taken,  for  the  obtaining 
of  the  meeting  of  the  convention. 

The  result  of  their  deliberations,  was  the  estab- 
lishing of  the  following  principles,  as  a  foundation 
for  the  future  forming  of  an  ecclesiastical  body,  for 
the  church  at  large. 

1st,  That  the  episcopal  church  in  these  states  is, 
and  ought  to  be,  independent  of  all  Ibreign  authority, 
ecclesiastical  or  civil. 


73 

2dly,  That  it  hath,  and  ought  to  have,  in  common 
with  all  other  rehgious  societies,  full  and  exchisive 
powers,  to  regulate  tlie  concerns  of  its  own  commu- 
nion. 

3dly,  That  the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel  be  main- 
tained, as  now  professed  by  the  church  of  England; 
and  uniformity  of  worship  continued,  as  near  as  may 
be,  to  the  Liturgy  of  the  said  church. 

4thly,  That  the  succession  of  the  ministry  be 
agreeable  to  the  usage,  which  requireth  the  three 
orders  of  bishops,  priests  and  deacons;  that  the  rights 
and  powers  of  the  same,  respectively,  be  ascertained; 
and  that  they  be  exercised  according  to  reasonable 
laws,  to  be  duly  made. 

5thly,  That  to  make  canons  or  laws,  there  be  no 
other  authority,  than  that  of  a  representative  body 
of  the  clergy  and  laity  conjointly. 

6thly,  That  no  powers  be  delegated  to  a  general 
ecclesiastical  government,  except  such  as  cannot 
conveniently  be  exercised  by  the  clergy  and  laity,  in 
their  respective  congregations.* 

*  The  steps  preparatory  to  the  resolves  were  as  follow:  they 
were  the  first  advances  towards  a  general  organization,  and  are 
fopied  from  the  original  journal,  in  possession. 

Philadelphia,  March  Q9th,  1784. 

At  the  house  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  White,  rector  of  Christ-church 
and  St.  Peter's. 

In  consequence  of  appointments  made  by  the  vesti'y  of  Christ 
church  and  St.  Peter's,  as  followeth: 

"  The  rector  mentioned  to  the  vestry,  that  he  lately  had  a 
conversation  with  the  Rev.  Dr.  Magaw,  on  the  subject  of 
appointing  committees   from  the  vestries  of  their  respective 

K 


74 

As  this  was  the  first  ecclesiastical  assembly,  in 
any  of  the  states,  consisting  partly  of  lay  memberSj 

churches,  to  confer  with  the  clergy  of  the  said  churches,  on 
the  subject  of  forming  a  representative  body  of  the  episcopal 
church  in  this  state,  and  wished  to  have  the  sense  of  vestry 
thereon.  After  some  consideration,  the  vestry  agreed  to  appoint 
Matthew  Clarkson  and  Wm.  Pollard  for  Christ  church,  and  Dr. 
Clarkson  and  John  Chaloner  for  St.  Peter's;"  and  by  the  vestry 
of  St.  Vaul's  church,  as  foUoweth:  "  A  copy  of  the  minute  of  the 
vestry  of  Christ  church  and  St.  Pet  i  's,  of  the  13th  of  November 
last,  was,  by  the  Rev.  Dr*  Magaw,  laid  before  this  vestry, 
and  is  as  follows,  (here  follows  the  above  minute.)  The  above 
minute  being  taken  into  consideration,  and  this  vestry  concur- 
ring in  opinion  thereon,  unanimously  appointed  Lambert  Wil*- 
mer  and  Plunket  Fleeson,  Esqrs.  on  the  part  of  this  church,  to 
carry  into  execution  the  good  int -ntions  of  the  said  minute." 

The  clergy,  together  with  the  gentlemen  named  in  the  said 
appointments,  (except  Matthew  Clarkson,  Esq.  and  Dr.  Clark- 
son, who  were  detained  by  sickness,)  assembled  at  the  time  and 
place  above  mentioned. 

The  body  thus  assembled,  having  taken  into  consideration 
the  necessity  of  speedily  adopting  measures  for  the  forming  of 
a  plan  of  ecclesiastical  government  for  the  episcopal  church, 
were  of  opinion,  that  a  subject  of  such  importance  ought  to  be 
taken  up,  if  possible,  with  the  concurrence  of  the  episcopalians 
of  the  United  States  in  general.  They,  therefore,  resolved  to 
ask  a  conference  with  such  members  of  the  episcopal  congre- 
gations of  the  counties  in  this  state,  as  were  then  in  town;  and  the 
clergy  present  undertook  to  converse  with  such  persons  as  they 
could  find  of  the  above  description,  and  to  request  their  meet- 
ing tlie  body  at  Cluist  church,  on  Wednesday  evening  at  seven 
o'clock. 

Christ  church,  March  Slst. 

The  clergy  and  the  two  committees  assembled,  and  elected 
Dr.  ^^  hit  •  their  chairman. 

Th«  clergy  reported,  that  agieeably  to  theii*  promise,  they 


75 

and  as  the  author  was  considered  at  the  time  to  be 
the  proposer  of  the  measure;  the  principle  of  it  having 
been  advocated,  about  a  year  before,  in  a  pamphlet 

had  spoken  to  scvlmoI  gentlemen,  who  readily  consented  to  the 
conference  proposed. 

The  meeting  continued  for  some  time;  when  it  was  signified 
to  them,  that  several  gentlemen  who  liad  designed  to  attend, 
were  detained  by  the  unexpected  sitting  of  the  lionourable  house 
of  assembly,  they  being  members  of  that  house.  The  Hon.  Jamos 
Read,  Esq.  attended,  according  to  desire.  After  some  conversa- 
tion on  the  business  of  this  meeting,  it  was  resolved,  that  a  cir- 
cular letter  be  addressed  to  the  wardens  and  vestrymen  of  the 
respective  episcopal  congregations  in  tlie  state,  and  that  the  same 
be  as  follows,  viz. 
Gentlemen, 

The  episcopal  clergy  in  this  city,  together  with  committees 
appointed  by  the  vestry  of  Christ  church  and  St.  Peter's,  and 
another  committee  appointed  by  the  vestry  of  St.  Paul's  church  in 
the  same  city,  for  the  purpose  of  proposing  a  plan  of  ecclesiastical 
government,  being  now  assembled,  are  of  opinion,  that  a  subject 
of  such  importance  ougiit  to  be  taken  up,  if  possible,  with  the 
concurrence  of  the  episcopalians  of  the  United  States  in  general. 
They  have  therefore  resolved,  as  preparatory  to  a  general  con- 
sultation, to  request  the  church-wardens  and  vestrymen  of  each 
episcopal  congregation  in  the  state,  to  delegate  one  oi'  more  of 
their  body  to  assist  at  a  meeting  to  be  held  in  this  city  on  Mon- 
day the  24th  day  of  May  next;  and  such  clergjTnen  as  have  pa- 
rochial cure  in  the  said  congregations  to  attend  the  mectino-, 
which  they  hope  will  contain  a  full  representation  of  the  episco- 
pal church  in  this  state.  The  above  resolve,  gentlemen,  the  first 
step  in  their  proceedings,  tiiey  now  respectfully  and  affection- 
ately communicate  to  you. 

Signed,  in  behalf  of  the  body  now  assembled, 

WM.  WHITE,  Chaii-man, 

In  consequence  of  tlv?  above  circular,  the  contemplated  meet- 
ing was  held  in  Christ  church  on  the  24th  of  May,  1784.    1  he 


76 

known  to  be  his;  he  thinks  it  proper,  to  give  in  this 
place,  a  short  statement  of  his  reasons,  in  its  favour. 
From  what  he  has  read  of  primitive  usage,  he 
thinks  it  evident,  that  in  very  early  times,  when  every 
church,  that  is,  the  christian  people  in  every  city  and 
convenient  district  round  it,  was  an  ecclesiastical 
commonwealth,  with  all  the  necessary  powxTs  of  self- 
government;  the  body  of  the  people  had  a  considera- 
ble share  in  its  determinations.  He  is  not  setting 
up  lord  King's  plea,  of  the  people's  having  been  a 
constituent  part  of  the  ancient  ecclesiastical  synods; 
for  which  there  does  not  seem  to  be  any  ground; 
the  passages  quoted  to  the  effect  by  his  lordship  prov- 
ing no  more,  than  that  some  of  the  laity  were  occa- 
sionally present  at  the  deliberations.  But  there  is 
here  spoken  of  the  practice  which  was  prevalent, 
before  the  introduction  of  ecclesiastical  synods;  of 
the  holding  of  which  there  is  little  or  no  evidence, 
until  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  The  same 
sanction  which  the  people  gave  originally  in  a  body, 
they  might  lawfully  give  by  representation.  In  re- 
ference to  very  ancient  pr^actice,  it  would  be  an 
omission  not  to  take  notice  of  the  council  of  Jerusa- 
lem, mentioned  in  the  15th  chapter  of  the  Acts.  That 
the  people  were  concerned  in  the  transactions  of  that 
body,  is  granted  generally  by  episcopalian  divines. 
Something  has  been  said,  indeed,  to  distinguish  be- 
tween the  authoritative  act  of  the  Apostles,  and  the 

minutos  of  the  nieofiiig  arc  in  tlie  print imI  journals  of  the  church 
in  PtMiiisylvania.  Tlic  pi  incipal  result,  was  communicated  a  few 
da}'S  after,  to  tiie  meeting  in  New  Brunswick* 


77 

concurring  act  of  the  lay  brethren:  and  Abp.  Potter, 
in  suj»p(>rt  of  this  distinction,  corrects  the  common 
translation,  on  the  authority  of  some  ancient  manu- 
scripts, reading  (Acts  xv.  23.)  "  elders  brethren:"  a 
similar  expression,  bethinks,  to  "men  brethren,"  in 
chapter  ii.  29;  where  the  and  is  evidently  an  inter- 
polation, to  suit  the  idiom  of  the  English  language.  It 
does  not  appear,  that  our  best  commentators,  either 
belbre  or  since  the  time  of  Abp.  Potter,  have  followed 
his  reading.  Mills  prefers,  and  Griesbach  rejects  it. 
The  passage,  even  with  the  corrections,  amounts  to 
what  is  pleaded  for — theobtainingof  the  consent  of  the 
laity;  which  must  have  accompanied  the  decree  of 
Jerusalem:  nothing  less  being  included  in  the  term 
"multitude,"  who  are  said  to  have  "kept  silence;" 
and  in  that  of  "  the  whole  church,"  of  whom,  as  well 
as  of  the  apostles  and  elders,  it  is  said,  that  "it  pleased" 
them  to  institute  the  recorded  mission.  On  no  other 
principle  than  that  here  affirmed,  can  there  be  ac- 
counted for  many  particulars  introduced  in  the  apos- 
tolic epistles-  The  matters  referred  to  are  subjects, 
which,  on  the  contrary  supposition,  were  exclusively 
within  the  province  of  the  clergy;  and  not  to  be  acted 
on  by  the  churches,  to  whom  the  epistles  are  rss- 
pectively  addressed. 

If  then  the  matter  pleaded  for  be  lawful;  the 
question  of  the  propriety  of  adopting  it  ought  to  be 
determined  by  expediency.  That  it  was  expedient, 
is  judged,  1st.  from  its  being  a  natural  consequence 
of  the  principle  of  following  the  church  of  England, 
in  all  the  leading  points  of  her  doctrine,  disciphne  and 


78 

worship.  We  could  not,  in  any  other  way,  have  had 
a  substitute  for  the  parhanientary  sanction  to  legisla- 
tive acts  of  power.  Such  a  sanction  is  pleaded  for 
by  Mr.  Hooker  and  others;  as  rendered  proper  by 
the  reason  of  the  thing,  and  the  principles  of  the 
British  constitution.  On  this  very  ground,  the  courts 
of  law  of  that  country  have  always  refused  to  recog- 
nize the  canons  of  1603,  as  binding  over  the  laity. 
So  far  as  they  are  a  declaration  of  the  ancient  canon 
law  of  the  realm,  they  are  held  to  be  binding,  like  the 
common  law,  on  the  ground  of  immemorial  custom: 
but  such  matters  as  rest  only  on  the  determinations 
of  the  convocation,  have  been  continually  declared, 
by  solemn  judgments  of  the  courts,  to  be  not  binding 
on  the  laity;  for  the  express  reason,  that  they  were 
not  represented  in  the  convocation. — 2d\y.  From  a 
doubt  of  our  being  able  to  carry  episcopacy  in  any 
other  way.  The  prejudices  of  even  some  of  the  mem- 
bers of  our  own  church  against  the  name,  and  much 
more  against  the  office  of  bishop;  and,  added  to  this, 
the  outcry  which  had  been  made  on  former  occa- 
sions, by  persons  of  other  denominations,  that  not 
spiritual  powers  only,  but  civil  also  were  intended; 
rendered  it  very  uncertain,  whether  we  could  accom- 
phsh  the  design,  without  engaging  in  the  measure 
such  a  description  of  gentlemen,  as  might  give  it 
weight;  and  show  to  the  world,  that  nothing  inimical 
either  to  civil  or  to  religious  rights  was  in  contem- 
plation.— Sdly.  Without  the  order  of  laity,  peima- 
nently  making  a  part  of  our  assemblies,  it  were  much 
to  be  apprehended,  that  the  laymen  would  never  be 


79 

brought  to  submit  to  any  of  our  ecclesiastical  laws, 
ill  such  points  as  might  affect  the  interests  or  the 
convenience  of  any  of  them;  which,  it  is  evident, 
might  happen  in  very  many  cases:  for  instance, 
to  mention  two  of  the  most  important — admission  to 
the  communion  and  exclusion  from  it.  And  they 
would  have  the  principles  and  the  practice  of  England 
to  plead  in  their  favour,  as  already  stated. 

In  order  to  show,  that  the  preceding  sentiments 
are  not  uncommon  in  the  church  of  England,  it  will 
be  to  the  purpose  to  give  the  following  extract  from 
bishop  Warburton's  "  Alliance  of  Church  and  State,^' 
p.  197 — "There  was  no  absurdity  in  that  custom, 
which  continued  during  the  Saxon  government  and 
some  time  after,  which  admitted  the  laity  into  eccle- 
siastical synods:  there  appearing  to  be  much  the 
same  reasons  for  laymen^s  sitting  in  convocation, 
as  for  churchmen  sitting  in  parliament."  On  the 
€(uestion  to  which  this  relates,  it  will  be  pertinent 
to  remark,  that  since,  according  to  what  is  held  by 
all  protestants,  neither  clergy  nor  laity  can  add  to 
the  truths  of  Scripture,  whatever  either  or  both  of 
them  may  ordain,  must  fall  under  the  head  of  discip- 
line. 

To  what  extent  lay-interference  was  carried  in 
the  Enghsh  reformation,  may  be  learned  from  the 
following  accounts  of  the  historian  Fuller.  Speaking 
of  the  convocation  of  1552,  under  Edward  VI.  he 
says — "  The  true  reason,  why  the  king  would  not 
intrust  the  diffusive  body  of  the  convocation,  with  a 
power  to  meddle  with  Haatters  of  rehgion,  was  a  just 


80 

jealousie  which  he  had  of  the  ill  affection  of  the  major 
part  thereof:  who,  under  the  fair  rinde  of  protestant 
profession,  had  the  rotten  core  of  Komish  superstition. 
It  was  therefore  conceived  safer  for  the  king,  to  relie 
on  the  ability  and  fidelity  of  some  select  confidents, 
cordiall  to  the  cause  of  religion;  than  to  adventure  the 
same  to  be  discussed  and  decided  by  a  suspitious  con- 
vocation. However,  this  convocation  is  entitled  the 
parent  of  those  articles  of  religion  (42  in  number) 
which  are  printed  with  this  preface  '  Articuli  de 
quibus  in  Synodo  Londinensi  Anno  Domini  1552, 
inter  Episcopos  et  alios  eruditos  viros  convene rat.^  ^' 

Afterwards  speaking  of  Poinet's  Catechism,  Fuller 
says — "  Very  few  in  the  convocation  ever  saw  it.  But 
these  had  formerly  (it  seems)  passed  over  their  power 
(I  should  be  thankfull  to  him  who  would  produce  the 
originall  instrument  thereof)  to  the  select  divines  ap- 
pointed by  the  king,  in  which  sense,  they  may  be 
said  to  have  done  it  themselves  by  their  delegates, 
to  whom  they  had  deputed  their  authority.  A  case  not 
so  clear,  but  that  it  occasioned  a  cavill  at  the  next 
convocation,  in  the  first  of  Ctueen  Mary,  when  the 
papists,  therein  assembled,  renounced  the  legality  of 
any  such  former  transactions.^^ 

However  cautiously  Fuller  speaks,  it  is  evident, 
he  had  no  faith  in  the  transmission  of  the  power  of 
the  convocation,  to  the  delegates  appointed  by  the 
king.  If  the  fact  could  be  established,  there  would 
remain  the  question  of  the  right  to  communicate, 
without  a  check,  a  power  exclusively  vested  in  the 
whole  clerical  order,  as  this  is  said  to  be.  In  the  con- 


81 

troversy  between  the  Romanists  and  the  Protestants, 
concerning  the  sanction  to  the  principle  of  persecu- 
tion by  the  4.ih  Lateran  Council  in  \225,  the  defence 
made,  is,  that  the  Pope  read  the  decrees  as  prepared 
by  himseltj  and  that  they  were  adopted  by  the  coun- 
cil without  discussion.  It  is  an  insuilicicnt  plea;  but 
more  specious,  than  that  of  an  authority  claimed  for 
points  not  only  not  discussed,  but  not  heard;  and 
resting  on  a  retrospect  to  the  alleged  delegation  of 
power,  if  there  should  exist  the  proof  of  it  unknown 
to  Fuller.  It  is  right  to  contend  for  the  due  weight 
of  the  clei-gy,  in  ecclesiastical  proceedings;  but  when 
the  matter  is  carried  so  far,  as  that  Avithout  their  per- 
mission, there  shall  not  be  the  rejection  of  corrup- 
tions in  contrariety  to  the  records  on  which  their 
commission  rests,  the  claim  is  extravagant;  and  tends 
to  the  counteracting  evil^  of  a  denial  of  the  real  rights 
of  their  order. 

The  connexion  of  this  with  a  pamphlet  published 
in  the  summer  of  1783,  by  the  author,  although  with- 
out his  name;  in  which  pamphlet  was  the  first  pubhc 
suggestion,  tending  to  the  introduction  of  the  laity 
into  our  ecclesiastical  councils;  induces  the  taking 
of  this  opportunity  of  declaring,  that,  after  the  years 
which  have  passed,  there  does  not  appear  to  his  mind 
any  cause  to  retract  the  leading  sentiments  of  that 
performance.  The  necessity  urged  in  it  ceased  to 
exist,  within  a  short  time  after  the  publication;  and 
therefore,  all  thoughts  of  the  measure  intended  to 
have  been  founded  on  it,  w^ere  laid  aside.  But  had 
Great  Britain  dropt  the  war,  yet  continued  her  claims; 

L 


82 

T 

as  many  judicious  persons  expected  would  be  the 
case;  and  as  had  happened  formerly,  between  Spain 
and  the  United  iNetherlands;  it  is  difficult  to  perceive, 
how  any  thing  materially  different  from  what  is  re- 
commended in  that  pamphlet,  could  have  continued 
us  as  a  religious  society,  in  existence  *  Soon  after 
the  publication  of  the  pamphlet,  the  author  found 
himself  in  danger  of  being  involved  in  a  dispute  with 
the  clergy  of  Connecticut;  in  the  name  of  whom,  as- 
sembled in  convention,  their  secretary,  the  Rev.  Abra- 
ham Jarvis,  addressed  a  letter;  complaining  of  the 
performance^,  although  doubtless  mistaking  the  ob- 
ject of  it.  The  letter  was  answered — it  is  hoped  in 
a  friendly  manner — and  there  the  matter  ended.  The 
same  convention,  in  the  address  sent  by  them  to  the 
archbishop  of  York,  alluded  to  the  pamphlet,  as  evi- 
dence of  a  design  entertained  to  set  up  an  episco- 
pacy, on  the  gromid  of  presbyterial  and  lay  autho- 
rity. No  personal  animosity  became  the  result  of  this 
misapprehension;  and  other  events  have  manifested 
consent  in  all  matters  essential  to  ecclesiastical  dis- 
ciphne.  Before  the  author's  subsequent  visit  to  En- 
gland, he  knew  that  his  pamphlet  had  been  in  the 

*'  It  is  not  to  be  supposed,  that  under  sucli  circumstances, 
the  non-juring  bishops  of  Scotland,  labouring  undei-  penal  laws, 
not  executed  indeed,  but  to  wliich  tliey  were  obnoxious,  and 
studying  to  live  in  quiet  submission  to  an  autliority  which  they 
did  not  acknowledge,  ^v•ould  have  provoked  it  by  the  measure  in 
question.  It  is  equally  improbable,  that  any  kingdom,  the  es- 
tablishment of  wliich  was  protestant  and  episcopalian,  would 
have  provoked  Great  Britain  by  an  intercourse  with  those  whom 
ijh.e  would  have  considered  as  her  subjects  in  rebc'llion. 


83 

hands  of  the  archbishop — not  the  prelate  to  whom 
the  convention  liad  addressed  their  letter — of  York, 
the  cliair  of  Canterbury  being  recently  vacated  by 
the  decease  of  Or.  Cornwallis,  and  tlie  appointment 
of  his  successor  being  not  yet  knoun  in  America. 
The  latter,  Abp.  Moore,  did  not  express  any  dis- 
satisfaction with  the  pamphlet,  or  with  the  author 
on  its  account;  nor  has  any  other  English  prelate,  so 
far  as  is  known  to  him.  It  had  been  enclosed  to  Mr. 
Adams,  the  American  minister,  when  there  was  offi- 
cially sent  to  him  the  address  of  the  convention  of 
1 785  to  the  archbishops  and  bishops  of  England,  and 
was  by  him  delivered  to  the  archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury.* 

*  The  pamphlet,  written  at  a  time,  when  there  were  few  epis- 
copalian pulpits  in  the  United  States  from  which  the  sound  of 
the  Gospel  was  heard,  was  to  the  following  effect: 

It  proposed  the  combining  of  the  clergy  and  of  representa- 
tives of  the  congregations,  in  convenient  districts,  witli  a  re- 
presentative body  of  the  whole,  nearly  on  the  plan  subsequently 
adopted.  This  ecclesiastical  representative  was  to  make  a  de- 
claration approving  of  episcopacy,  and  professing  a  determina- 
tion to  possess  the  succession  when  it  could  be  obtained;  but 
they  were  to  cany  the  plan  into  immediate  act. 

The  expedient  was  sustained  by  the  plea  of  necessity,  and 
by  opinions  of  various  autliors  of  the  church  of  England,  acknow- 
ledging a  valid  ministry  under  circumstances  similar  to  tliosc  of 
the  existing  case,  although  less  imperious.  It  was  also  alleged, 
that  as  much  as  what  v/as  now  proposed  might  be  seen  to  be  im- 
plied, in  the  ground  on  which  episcopacy  rests  in  the  institutions 
of  the  church  of  England,  and  in  the  defences  of  it  by  her  most 
celebrated  divines.  Although  reference  was  had  to  the  position  of 


84 

On  the  communication  from  Connecticut,  it  will 
not  be  offensive  at  the  present  day,  to  make  the  fol- 
lowing remarks. 

There  pervades  it  the  defect,  of  not  distinguish- 
ing between  the  then  state  of  public  concerns,  and 
as  they  stood  when  the  pamphlet  was  published. 
Nearly  a  year,  and  the  acknowledgment  of  indepen- 
dence had  intervened.  The  intimation  in  the  letter, 
that  the  author  of  the  pamphlet  regarded  episcopacy 
no  further  than  that  for  the  satisfying  of  the  people, 
the  prospect  was  to  be  held  out  of  obtaining  it  at  a 
future  time,  would  have  been  wounding  to  his  feel- 
ings, had  his  brethren  of  Connecticut  possessed  a 
knowledge  of  him.  They  were,  at  that  time,  strangers 
to  one  another.  The  intimated  suspicion  was  then 
resolved,  and  is  now  resolved  by  him  on  whom  it  fell, 
into  a  difference  of  apprehension  as  to  the  means  of 
accomplishing  the  same  end. 

The  writer  of  the  pamphlet,  although  aware  that 
there  are  occasions  of  defending  episcopacy  against 
opposite  pretensions,  entertained  the  opinion,  that 
the  most  improper,  is  when  the  subject  under  discus- 
sion concerned  the  episcopal  church  alone.  The 
members  of  this  church  were  supposed  to  have  been 
satisfied  w  ith  the  principles  on  which  they  had  acted, 

the  church,  that  "  from  the  apostles'  time,  tliere  have  been  in  the 
church  of  Christ,  the  three  orders  of  bishops,  priests,  and  dea- 
cons;" notliing  was  said  in  proof  of  the  fact;  because  it  was  not 
qutstioiied  in  this  church;  and  because  argument  to  the  ettect 
>yould  have  been  indiscreet,  as  to  be  stated  above. 


85 

and  which  they  still  professed.  To  have  involved 
the  n.erits  of  those  principles  with  the  object  in  view, 
would  have  given  a  plausible  pretence  for  the  inter- 
ference of  those  who  might  be  disposed  to  defeat  the 
measure  in  contemplation. 

It  is  difficult,  in  avoiding  one  extreme,  not  to  fall 
under  the  appearance  of  its  opposite.  Many  years 
after  the  publication  of  the  pamphlet,  a  clergyman  of 
standing  in  an  anti-episcopalian  society,  alleged  some 
passages  of  the  performance  as  sustaining  ordination 
not  episcopal.  But  he  had  the  candour  pubHcly  to 
acknowledge  his  mistake,  when  it  was  pointed  out 
to  him. 

For  the  communication  from  the  clergy  of  Con- 
necticut, see  Appendix  No.  3. 

It  is  no  slight  instance  of  tlie  proneness  to  govern 
too  much,  and  of  the  peculiar  liability  to  the  error  in 
a  collective  body,  that  during  the  war  of  the  revolution, 
the  legislature  of  Maryland,  although  consisting  of 
men  of  various  denominations,  took  up  the  subject  of 
organizing  the  church,  and  particularly  of  appointing 
ordainers  to  the  ministry.  A  clergyman  of  weight 
of  character — the  Rev.  Samuel  Keene — actuated  by 
laudable  ardour,  repaired  to  Annapolis,  was  heard 
belore  the  house,  and  was  considered  as  principally 
influential  in  producing  an  abandonment  of  the  de- 
sign. Perhaps  the  hasty  entei-prize  was  over-ruled  to 
good:  for  almost  as  soon  as  there  became  known  the 
happy  event  of  peace,  there  were  held  two  conven- 
tions in  Maryland;  the  first,  on  the  13th  of  August, 
1783;  and  tlie  other,  on  the  '^2d  of  June,  1784.  The 


86 

proceedings  of  these  conventions,  with  measures 
taken  at  other  times  and  in  other  matters  by  the 
clergy  of  that  state,  were  chiefly  originated  and  con- 
ducted by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Smith;  who,  in  his  residence 
there,  during  the  seizure  of  the  charter  rights  of  the 
college  of  Philadelphia,  exerted  his  excellent  talents 
in  these  and  in  other  public  works. 

The  principal  business  of  the  convention  in  Au- 
gust 1 783,  was  the  making  of  "  A  declaration  of 
certain  fundamental  rights  and  liberties  of  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Church  of  Maryland,"  consisting 
of  the  following  articles. 

1  St.  We  consider  it  as  the  undoubted  right  of  the 
said  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  in  common  with 
other  Christian  churches  under  the  American  revo- 
lution, to  complete  and  preserve  herself  as  an  entire 
church,  agreeably  to  her  ancient  usages  and  profes- 
sions; and  to  have  a  full  enjoyment  and  free  exercise 
of  those  purely  spiritual  powers,  which  are  essential 
to  the  being  of  every  church  or  congregation  of  the 
faithful;  and  which,  being  derived  from  Christ  and 
his  apostles,  are  to  be  maintained  independent  of 
every  foreign  or  other  jurisdiction;  so  far  as  may  be 
consistent  with  the  civil  rights  of  society. 

2d.  That  ever  since  the  reformation,  it  hath  been 
the  received  doctrine  of  the  church  of  which  we  are 
members,  (and  which,  by  the  constitution  of  this  state, 
is  entitled  to  a  perpetual  enjoyment  of  certain  pro- 
perty and  rights,  under  the  denomination  of  the 
Church  of  England.)  "  That  there  be  three  orders  of 
ministers  in  Christ's  church,  bishops,  priests,  and 


87 

ileacons;"  and,  that  an  episcopal  ordination  and  com- 
niission  are  necessary  to  the  vaUd  administration  of 
the  sacraments,  and  the  due  exercise  ot"  the  ministe- 
rial function,  in  the  said  church. 

Sd.  That  without  calling  in  question  the  rights, 
modes  and  forms  of  any  other  Christian  churches 
or  societies,  or  wishing  the  least  contest  with  them 
on  that  subject,  we  consider  and  declare  it  to  be 
an  essential  right  of  the  said  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  to  have  and  enjoy  the  continuance  of  the 
said  three  orders  of  ministers  for  ever,  so  far  as  con- 
cerns matters  purely  spiritual;  and  that  no  persons, 
in  the  character  of  ministers,  except  such  as  are  in 
the  communion  of  the  said  church,  and  duly  called 
to  the  ministry  by  regular  episcopal  ordination,  can 
or  ought  to  be  admitted  into  or  enjoy  any  of  the 
churches,  chapels,  glebes,  or  other  property,  for- 
merly belonging  to  the  church  of  England  in  this 
state;  and  which,  by  the  constitution  and  form  of 
government,  is  secured  to  the  said  church  for  ever; 
by  whatsoever  name  she,  the  said  church,  or  her 
superior  order  of  ministers,  may  in  future  be  de- 
nominated. 

4th.  That  as  it  is  the  right,  so  it  will  be  the  duty 
of  the  said  church,  when  duly  organized,  constituted, 
and  represented  in  a  synod  or  convention  of  the  dif- 
ferent orders  of  her  ministers  and  people,  to  revise 
her  liturgy,  forms  of  prayer,  and  public  worship;  in 
order  to  adapt  the  same  to  the  late  revolution,  and 
other  local  circumstances  of  America;  which,  it  is 
humbly  conceived,  will  and  may  be  done,  without 


88 

any  other  or  farther  departure  from  the  venerahle 
order  and  beautiful  forms  of  worship  of  the  church 
from  which  we  sprung,  than  may  be  found  expedient 
in  the  change  of  our  situation,  from  a  daughter  to  a 
sister  church. 

In  the  convention  of  June  1784,  which  inchided 
lay-deputies  from  the  different  parishes,  the  afore- 
said declaration  was  again  approved;  and  certain 
fundamental  principles  of  ecclesiastical  government 
were  established;  of  which  the  following  is  recorded 
on  the  printed  journal  as  the  substance. 

1.  That  none  of  the  orders  of  the  clergy,  whether 
bishops,  priests,  or  deacons,  who  may  be  under  the 
necessity  of  obtaining  ordination  in  any  foreign  state, 
with  a  view  to  officiate  or  settle  in  this  state,  shall, 
at  the  time  of  their  ordination,  or  at  any  time  after- 
wards, take  or  subscribe  any  obhgation  of  obedience, 
civil  or  canonical,  to  any  foreign  power  or  authority 
whatsoever,  nor  be  admissible  into  the  ministry  of 
this  church,  if  such  obligations  have  been  taken  for 
a  settlement  in  any  foreign  country,  without  renounc- 
ing the  same;  by  taking  the  oaths  required  by  law, 
as  a  test  of  allegiance  to  this  state. 

2.  According  to  what  we  conceive  to  be  of  true 
apostolic  institution,  the  duty  and  office  of  a  bishop 
differs  in  nothing  from  that  of  other  priests,  except 
in  the  power  of  ordination  and  confirmation;  and  in 
the  right  of  precedency  in  ecclesiastical  meetings  or 
synods;  and  shall  accordingly  be  so  exercised  in  this 
church;  the  duty  and  office  of  priests  and  deacons 
remaining  as  heretofore.     And  if  any  further  dis^ 


89 

liuctions  and  regulations,  in  the  different  orders  o{' 
tlie  ministry,  should  be  found  necessary  for  the  good 
government  of  the  church;  the  same  shall  be  made 
and  established  by  the  joint  voice  and  authority  of  a 
representative  body  of  the  clergy  and  laity,  at  iuture 
ecclesiastical  synods  or  conventions. 

3.  The  third  section,  is  intended  to  define  or  dis- 
criminate some  of  the  separate  rights  and  powers  of 
the  clerg}',  and  was  proposed  and  agreed  to  as  fol- 
lows; viz.  that  the  clergy  shall  be  deemed  adequate 
judges  of  the  ministerial  commission  and  authorit)^, 
which  is  necessary  to  the  due  administi'ation  of  the 
ordinances  of  religion  in  their  own  church;  and  of 
the  literary,  moral,  and  religious  qualifications  and 
abilities  of  persons  to  be  nominated  and  appointed  to 
the  different  orders  of  the  ministry;  but  the  approv- 
ing and  receiving  such  persons  to  any  particular  cure, 
duty,  or  parish,  when  so  nominated,  appointed,  set 
apart,  consecrated  and  ordained,  is  in  the  people, 
who  are  to  support  them,  and  to  receive  the  benefit 
of  their  ministry. 

4.  The  fourth  section  provides,  that  ecclesiastical 
conventions  or  synods  of  this  church  shall  consist  of 
the  clergy,  and  one  lay-delegate  or  representative 
from  each  vestry  or  parish,  or  a  majority  of  the  same; 
and  shall  be  held  annually  on  the  Iburth  Tuesday  of 
October,  unless  some  canon  or  rule  should  be  made 
at  some  future  convention  for  altering  the  time  of 
meeting,  or  for  meeting  oftener  than  once  a  year,  or 
not  so  often,  or  with  a  larger  or  smaller  representa- 
tion of  the  church,  as  may  be  judged  necessary.  But 

M 


90 

fundamental  rules,  once  duly  made,  shall  not  be  al- 
tered; unless  two  thirds  of  such  majoiity,  as  afore- 
said, duly  assembled,  shall  agree  therein. 

The  following  heads  of  additional  articles,  were 
set  down  for  the  consideration  of  the  next  con- 
vention. 

1.  That  the  power  and  authority  necessary  for 
reclaiming  or  excluding  scandalous  members,  whe- 
ther lay  or  clerical,  and  all  jurisdiction  with  regard 
to  offenders,  be  exercised  only  by  a  representative 
body  of  clergy  and  laity  jointly. 

2.  That  the  power  of  suspending  or  dismissing 
clergymen  from  the  exercise  of  their  ministry,  in  any 
particular  church,  parish,  or  district,  be  by  the  like 
authority. 

3.  That  all  canons  or  laws  for  church-govern- 
ment, and  all  alterations,  changes,  and  reforms,  in 
the  church  service  and  liturgy,  or  in  points  of  doc- 
trine to  be  professed  and  taught  in  the  church,  shall 
also  be  by  the  like  authority. 

The  proceedings  of  these  conventions,  besides 
the  circumstance  of  their  showing  an  accommoda- 
tion to  the  civil  system,  by  the  introduction  of  the 
laity,  gave  great  offence  to  some  of  the  clergy,  by 
the  definition  of  the  authority  of  a  bishop,  in  the  se- 
cond of  the  articles  established.  It  is,  evidently,  the 
much  controverted  position  of  St.  Jerome.  The  au- 
thor does  not  think  it  accurate:  and  although  his 
principles  on  the  subjeat  of  episcopacy  allow  of  an 
accommodation  of  its  powers  to  the  circumstances 
of  the  church,  at  different  times;  he  was  afraid  of 


91 

there  arising  some  inconvenience  from  the  asserting, 
as  a  fundamental  pnnci[)le,  of  what  was  in  the  oppo- 
site extreme  to  that  of  the  overstrained  authorities  of 
the  office,  maintained  by  others. 

In  consequence  of  the  recommendation  and  pro- 
posal of  the  meeting  of  1 784  in  New  York,  there 
was  a  convention  of  the  clergy  of  South  Carolina, 
at  Charleston,  in  the  spring  of  1785.  This  was  the 
state,  in  which  there  was  the  most  to  be  appre- 
hended an  opposition  to  the  very  principle  of  episco- 
pacy; from  its  being  connected,  in  the  minds  of  some 
people,  with  the  idea  of  an  attachment  to  the  British 
government.  The  citizens  of  South  Carolina  were 
the  last  visited  by  the  British  armies;  and  had  suf- 
fered more  than  any  others,  by  their  ravages.  The 
truth  is.  there  was  real  danger  of  an  opposition  in 
the  convention,  to  a  compliance  with  the  invitation 
given.  But  the  danger  was  warded  off,  by  a  proposal 
made  by  the  Rev.  Robert  Smith,  to  accompany  their 
compliance  w^ith  the  measure,  by  its  being  under- 
stood, that  there  was  to  be  no  bishop  settled  in  that 
state.  Such  a  proposal,  from  the  gentleman  who, 
it  was  presumed,  would  be  the  bishop,  were  there  to 
be  any  chosen,  had  the  effect  intended.  Some  gen- 
tlemen, it  is  said,  declared  in  conversation,  that  they 
had  contemplated  an  opposition;  but  were  prevented 
by  this  caution. 

Besides  the  conventions  which  have  been  men- 
tioned, there  were  one  in  New  York,  and  another  in 
New  Jersey,  in  the  summer  of  1785.  But  as  their 
proceedings  extended  no  further,  than  to  the  appoint- 


92 

ing  of  deputies  to  the  general  convention;  it  is  not 
necessary  to  notice  them  any  further,  than  is  dictated 
by  this  circumstance. 


F.  Page  1 5.    Of  the  General  Convention,  in  Phila- 
delphia, in  September  and  October,  1785. 

The  president  of  this  convention  was  Dr.  White, 
and  the  secretary  was  the  Rev.  Dr.  Griffith. 

There  being  journals  of  this  convention,  and  of 
the  conventions  following,  the  matter  of  those  jour- 
nals will  not  be  repeated  in  this  work;  except  so  far 
as  may  be  thought  necessary  to  the  sense  of  it:  the 
design  being  principally  the  communicating  of  facts 
within  the  knowledge  and  the  recollection  of  the 
narrator,  tending  to  throw  light  on  what  has  been 
recorded.  The  statements  and  the  remarks  to  be 
now  offered,  will  be  arranged  under  the  heads  of 
sundry  sections. 

Section  I.    Cf  the  general  Ecclesiastical  Constitution. 

It  has  been  seen,  that  in  the  preceding  year,  at 
New  York,  a  few  general  principles,  tending  to  the 
organizing  of  the  church,  had  been  recommended  to 
the  churches  represented,  and  proposed  to  those  not 
represented.  As  all  the  articles,  except  the  fourth, 
which  recognized  the  English  liturgy,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  the  political  parts  of  it,  were  adopted  by 
the  present  convention,  they  became  abend  of  union; 
and  indeed,  the  only  one  acted  under  until  the  year 


93 

1 789.  For  as  to  the  general  constitution,  framed  at 
the  period  now  before  us,  it  stood  on  recommenda- 
tion only;  and  was  of  no  use,  except  in  helping  to 
convince  those  who  were  attached  to  that  mode  of 
transacting  business,  that  it  was  very  idle  to  bring 
gentlemen  together  from  different  states,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  such  inconclusive  proceedings. 

The  fifth  and  the  eighth  articles  of  this  proposed 
constitution,  deserve  particular  notice;  because  they 
have  been  subjects  of  considerable  conversation  and 
censure. 

The  former  of  these  articles  provided,  that  every 
bishop  should  be  a  member  of  the  convention  "ex 
officio.''  Accordingly,  the  article  was  loudly  objected 
to  by  the  clergy  to  the  eastward;  because  of  its  not 
providing  lor  episcopal  presidency. 

The  constitution  was  drafted  by  the  author,  in  a 
sub-committee;  a  part  of  a  general  committee,  con- 
sisting of  a  clergyman  and  a  layman  from  each  state; 
and  originally  provided,  that  a  bishop,  if  any  were 
present,  should  preside.  In  the  sub-committee,  a 
gentleman,  without  much  consideration  of  the  sub- 
ject, and  contrary  to  what  his  good  sense,  w  ith  such 
an  advantage,  would  have  dictated,  objected  to  the 
clause;  and  insisted,  that  he  had  read,  although  he 
could  not  recollect  in  what  book,  that  this  had  not 
been  a  prerogative  of  bishops  in  ancient  ecclesiasti- 
cal assemblies.  The  objection  was  over-ruled,  by 
all  the  other  members  of  the  sub-committee.  But 
when  the  instrument,  after  passing  in  the  general 
committee,  was  brought  into  the  convention;  the 


94 

same  gentleman,  not  expecting  to  succeed,  and 
merely,  as  he  afterwards  said,  to  be  consistent,  made 
a  motion  to  strike  out  the  clause.  Contrary  to  ex- 
pectation, he  was  supported  by  another  lay-gentle- 
man, who  took  an  active  part  in  all  the  measures; 
and  who,  in  the  sub-committee,  had  been  of  another 
mind.  Thus  a  debate  was  brought  on,  which  pro- 
duced more  heat  than  any  thing  else,  that  happened 
during  the  session.  As  the  voting  was  by  orders, 
the  clergy,  who,  with  the  exception  of  one  gentle- 
man, were  for  the  clause,  might  have  quashed  the 
whole  article.  But  this  appeared  to  them  to  be  wrong; 
because  it  contained  nothing  contrary  to  the  principle 
of  episcopal  presidency;  and  the  general  object  was 
such,  as  ought  to  have  been  provided  for.  Accord- 
ingly, the  article  passed,  as  it  stands  on  the  journal: 
that  is,  with  silence  as  to  the  point  in  question.  It 
was  considered,  that  practice  might  settle  what  had 
better  be  provided  for  by  law;  and  that  even  such 
provision  might  be  the  result  of  a  more  mature  con- 
sideration of  the  subject.  The  latter  expectation  was 
justified  by  the  event. 

The  other  article  provided,  that  every  clergyman 
should  be  amenable  to  the  convention  of  the  state  to 
which  he  should  belong.  This  was  objected  to  by 
the  English  bishops,  as  appears  in  the  letter  of  the 
archbishops  of  Canterbury  and  York;  who  there 
complain,  that  it  is  "  a  degradation  of  the  clerical, 
and  much  more  of  the  episcopal  character."  The 
foundation  of  this  complaint,  like  that  of  the  other, 
w^as  rather  in  omission,  than  in  any  thing  positively 


95 

declared.  For  the  bisliop's  being  amenable  to  the 
convention  in  tlie  state  to  whicli  lie  belonged,  does 
not  necessarily  involve  any  thing  more,  than  tiiat  he 
should  be  triable  by  laws  of  their  enacting,  himself 
being  a  part  of  the  body:  and  it  did  not  follow,  that 
he  might  be  deposed  or  censured,  either  by  laymen 
or  by  presbyters.  This,  however,  ought  to  have  been 
guarded  against:  but  to  have  attempted  it,  while  the 
convention  were  in  the  temper  excited  by  the  alterca- 
tions concerning  the  fifth  article,  would  have  been 
to  no  purpose. 

In  this  whole  business,  there  was  encountered  a 
prejudice  entertained  by  many  of  the  clergy  in  other 
states;  who  thought,  that  nothing  should  have  been 
done  towards  the  organizing  of  the  church,  until  the 
obtaining  of  the  episcopacy.  This  had  been  much 
insisted  on,  in  the  preceding  year,  in  New  York. 
Let  us — it  was  said — first  have  an  head;  and  then 
let  us  proceed  to  regulate  the  body.  It  was  answered, 
on  that  occasion — let  us  gather  the  scattered  limbs; 
and  then,  let  the  head  be  superadded.  Certainly,  the 
different  episcopalian  congregations  knew  of  no  union 
before  the  revolution;  except  what  was  the  result  of 
the  connexion  which  they  in  conmion  had  with  the 
bishop  of  London.  The  authority  of  that  bishop  b^ 
ing  withdrawn,  what  right  had  the  episcopalians  in 
any  state,  or  in  any  one  part  of  it,  to  choose  a  bishop 
for  those  in  any  other.'*  And  until  an  union  were  ef- 
fected, what  is  there  in  Christianity  generally,  or  in 
the  principles  of  this  church  in  particular,  to  hinder 
them  from  taking  difierent  courses  in  different  places, 


96 

as  to  all  things  not  necessary  to  salvation?  Which 
might  have  produced  different  Hturgies,  different  ar- 
ticles, episcopacy  from  different  sources,  and  in  short, 
very  many  churches,  instead  of  one  extending  over 
the  United  States;  and  that,  without  any  ground  for 
the  charge  of  schism,  or  of  the  invasion  of  one  ano- 
thers^  rights.  The  course  taken,  has  embraced  all  the 
different  congregations.  It  is  far  from  being  certain, 
that  the  same  event  would  have  been  produced,  by 
any  other  plan  that  might  have  been  devised.  For 
instance,  let  it  be  supposed,  that  in  any  district  of 
Connecticut,  the  clergy  and  the  people,  not  satisfied 
with  the  choice  made  of  Bishop  Seabury,  or  with  the 
contemplated  plan  of  settlement,  had  acted  for  them- 
selves, instead  of  joining  with  their  brethren.  It 
would  be  impossible  to  prove  the  unlawfulness  of 
such  a  scheme;  or,  until  an  organization  were  made, 
that  the  minor  part  were  bound  to  submit  to  the  will 
of  the  majority.  There  was  no  likelihood  of  such 
an  indiscreet  proceeding,  in  Connecticut.  But  in 
some  other  departments  which  might  be  named,  it 
would  not  have  been  surprizing.  Let  it  be  remarked, 
that  in  the  preceding  hypothesis,  there  is  supposed 
to  have  been,  in  the  different  neighbourhoods,  a  bond 
of  union  not  dissolved  by  the  revolution.  This  sen- 
timent is  congenial  with  Christianity  itself,  and  w  ith 
Christian  discipline  in  the  beginning:  the  connexion 
not  existing  congregation  ally;  but,  in  eveiy  instance, 
without  dependence  on  the  houses,  in  which  the 
worship  of  the  different  portions  of  the  aggregate 
body  may  be  carried  on. 


97 


Section  II.    Of  the  Measures  taken  to  Obtain  the 
Episcopacy. 

The  expression  should  be  noticed,  on  account  of 
the  pretence  made  by  some,  that  tlie  episcopal  church 
in  the  United  States  begun  with  its  obtaining  of  the 
episcopacy.  According  to  this  notion,  where  dio- 
ceses exist  independently  on  one  another,  as  was  the 
condition  of  all  Christendom  for  a  long  time  after  the 
preaching  of  the  apostles,  on  the  decease  of  every 
bishop,  his  church  became  extinct.  A  new  name, 
does  not  characterize  the  church  as  new,  but  may 
arise  from  civil  changes  in  various  ways  to  be  con- 
ceived of.  What  was  called  formerly  "  the  Church 
of  England  in  America/'  did  not  cease  to  exist  on 
the  removal  of  the  episcopacy  of  the  bishop  of  Lon- 
don, by  the  providence  of  God;  but  assumed  a  new 
name,  as  the  dictate  of  propriety. 

It  may  be  matter  of  suiprise,  that,  after  the  cla- 
mor made  but  a  few  years  before  this  period,  on  the 
proposal  of  an  American  episcopacy;  and  consider- 
ing the  fashion  of  objecting  to  it  prevailing  even 
among  a  considerable  proportion  of  our  own  com- 
munion; there  should  now  be  a  unanimous  applica- 
tion tor  it,  from  a  fair  representative  of  the  church 
in  seven  states  of  the  union;  the  lay  part  consisting 
principally  of  gentlemen,  wiio  had  been  active  in  the 
late  revolution ;  and  made  under  circumsiances,  which 
required  the  consent  of  the  veiy  power  we  had  been 

N 


98 

at  war  with.*  The  truth  is,  that  if  there  existed  any 
inchnation  to  object — and  there  is  no  certainty  of 
the  contrary — it  was  prevented  by  what  is  to  be 
related. 

A  few  months  before  the  present  period,  bishop 
Seabury  had  arrived  in  Connecticut,  with  consecra- 
tion from  the  non-juring  bishops  of  Scotland.  The 
clergy  in  that  state,  not  liking  the  complexion  of  the 
measures  taken  for  the  calhng  of  a  general  conven- 
tion, wrote  to  several  of  the  southern  clergy,  inviting 
them  to  a  convention,  to  be  held  in  the  summer  at 
New  Haven.  What  answer  they  received  from  others, 
is  not  here  known:  but  that  of  Philadelphia  thanked 
them  for  their  invitation;  congratulated  bishop  Sea- 
bury  on  his  arrival;  apologized  for  the  not  coming, 
by  the  expectation  of  the  convention  in  September; 
and  invited  the  clergy  of  Connecticut  to  attend  the 
latter 

When  the  time  of  the  convention  in  Philadelphia 
drew  near,  Bishop  Seabury  wrote  to  Dr.  Smith,  then 
living  in  Maryland,  a  letter  which  he  enclosed  under 
cover  to  Dr.  Chandler  of  Elizabeth-Town;  who  sent 
it,  in  like  manner,  to  the  author;  desiring  him  to  read, 
and  then  forward  it  to  Dr.  Smith.  In  this  letter,  a 
copy  of  which  the  author  has  now  before  him,  Bp. 
Seabury,  besides  objecting  to  sundry  of  the  measures 

*  In  evidence  of  the  unanimity,  there  is  in  possession  of  the 
author,  the  original  instrument,  signed  by  all  the  clerical  and  all 
the  lay  members  who  gave  attendance  on  the  business  of  the 
convention. 


99 

faken  in  the  southern  states,  declared  himself  in  very 
strong  terms,  against  the  admission  of  the  laity  into 
ecclesiastical  councils;  and  indeed  against  that  of 
presbyters  also,  except  into  the  diocesan.  For  al- 
though his  expressions  are,  that  they  were  not  ad- 
mitted into  general  councils,  and  this  is  very  in- 
delinite;  yet  it  would  seem  from  the  connexion, 
that  he  disapproved  of  submitting  the  general  con- 
cerns o("  the  American  church  to  any  other  than 
bishops.  It  is  the  arrangement  of  the  church,  in 
which  Bishop  Seabury  received  his  episcopacy. 

This  letter,  which,  agreeably  to  a  desire  ex- 
pressed in  it,  was  laid  before  the  convention,  pro- 
duced some  animadversions.  A  few  of  the  lay- 
gentlemen,  spoke  more  warmly  than  the  occasion 
seemed  to  justify;  considering,  that  the  letter  ap- 
peared to  contain  the  honest  sentiments  of  the  writer, 
delivered  in  inoffensive  terms.  It  was  addressed  to 
a  gentleman,  who  had  long  lived  in  habits  of  ac- 
quaintance with  the  writer.  And  as  for  its  being  de- 
signed for  the  hearing  of  the  body  then  assembled; 
it  should  have  been  remembered,  that  the  clergy  of 
Connecticut  had  been  invited  to  the  meeting,  by 
those  at  whose  desire  they  had  appeared  themselves. 
On  this  ground,  they  were  answered  by  some  of  the 
clergy — particularly  by  Dr.  Andrews. 

For  the  letter,  see  Appendix  No.  4. 

It  naturally  happened  in  regard  to  any  apprehen- 
sions entertained  of  an  excessive  hierarchy,  that  they 
influenced  to  the  very  application  to  England,  which 
had  formerly,  from  the  very  same  cause,  been  con- 


100 

templated  with  jealousy.  It  was  generally  under- 
stood, that  the  door  was  open  to  consecration  in 
Scotland;  or  at  least,  that  if  there  should  be  any  im- 
pediment, it  must  arise  from  some  particulars,  which 
had  been  thought  too  republican  by  many.  That  the 
clergy  unanimously,  and  that  a  very  great  body  of  the 
laity  would  adhere  to  episcopacy,  was  well  known: 
and  therefore,  how  natural  the  recourse  to  a  quarter, 
in  which  it  was  thought  there  would  be  less  stifness, 
on  the  points  objected  to  by  Bishop  Seabury!  it 
may  be  added — in  which  the  political  principles  ob- 
taining, although  monarchical,  were  not  such  as  fa- 
voured arbitrary  power.  It  ought  to  be  understood, 
that  this  is  the  supposed  strain  of  reasoning  of  a  few 
only.  The  majority  of  the  convention  certainly 
thought  it  a  matter  of  choice,  and  even  required  by 
decency,  to  apply  in  the  first  instance,  to  the  church 
of  which  the  American  had  been  till  now  a  part.  No 
doubt,  the  sentiment  was  strengthened  by  the  gene- 
ral disapprobation  entertained  in  America,  of  the 
prejudices  which,  in  the  year  1688,  in  Scotland,  had 
deprived  the  episcopal  church  of  her  establishment; 
and  had  kept  her,  ever  since,  in  hostility  to  the  fa- 
mily on  the  throne.  As  to  Bishop  Seabury's  failure 
in  England,  the  causes  of  it,  as  stated  in  his  letter, 
seemed  to  point  out  a  way  of  obviating  the  difficulty 
in  the  present  case.  The  same  causes  had  been, 
with  no  considerable  variety,  stated  to  the  author 
in  a  letter  from  the  Rev.  Dr.  Murray,  formerly  of 
Reading  in  this  state;  who  declared  his  full  convic- 
tion, that  a  proper  application,  from  such  a  body  as 


101 

was  m  contemplation,  that  is  the  present  convention, 
of  whose  intendt'd  meeting  he  had  been  informed, 
would  be  follovved  by  success.  As  the  Doctor  was 
supposed  to  have  conversed  with  leading  characters 
on  the  subject,  which  was  found  afterwards  to  have 
been  the  case,  his  letter  had  great  weight  in  encour- 
aging the  measure. 

So  it  was,  then,  that  the  projected  application 
found  no  opposition.  The  duty  of  proposing  a  mode 
of  application  was  added  to  the  other  duties,  of  the 
general  committee  which  had  been  appointed.  As 
one  of  a  sub-committee,  the  author  drafted  the  re- 
solves and  the  address,  as  they  stand  on  the  journals, 
with  the  exception  of  a  few  verbal  alterations.  Thus, 
a  foundation  was  laid,  for  the  procuring  of  the  pre- 
sent episcopacy.  It  was  a  prudent  provision  of  the 
convention,  to  instruct  the  deputies  from  the  respec- 
tive states,  to  apply  to  the  civil  authorities  existing  in 
them  respectively,  for  their  sanction  of  the  measure; 
in  order  to  avoid  one  of  the  impediments,  whioh  had 
stood  in  the  way  of  Bishop  Seabury.  The  address 
above  alluded  to,  which  was  the  first  step  in  the  cor- 
respondence with  the  English  prelates,  is  in  the  Ap- 
pendix No.  5. 

The  episcopalian  public  may  be  supposed  to  be 
satisfied,  that  the  course  taken  was  the  best,  in  every 
point  of  view,  and  that  it  can  never  suffer  by  a  com- 
parison with  any  other  mode,  which  might  have  been 
pursued.  To  have  abandoned  the  episcopal  succes- 
sion, would  have  been  in  opposition  to  primitive  or- 
der and  ancient  habits;  and  besides,  would  at  least 


102 

have  divided  the  church.  To  have  had  recourse  to 
Scotland,  independently  on  the  objections  entertained 
against  the  political  principles  of  the  non-jurors  of 
that  country,  would  not  have  been  proper,  without 
previous  disappointment  on  a  request  made  to  the 
mother  church.  Another  resource  remained,  in  fo- 
reign ordination;  which  had  been  made  the  easier 
by  the  act  of  the  British  parliament,  passed  in  the 
preceding  year,  to  enable  the  bishop  of  London  to 
ordain  citizens  or  subjects  of  foreign  countries,  with- 
out exacting  the  usual  oaths.  But,  besides  that  this 
would  have  kept  the  church  under  the  same  hard- 
ships which  had  heretofore  existed,  and  had  been  so 
long  complained  of;  dependence  on  a  foreign  country 
in  spirituals,  when  there  had  taken  place  indepen- 
dence in  temporals,  is  what  no  prudent  person  would 
have  pleaded  for. 

Section  III.    Oftlie  Alterations  in  tJie  Book  of  Corw- 
mon  Prayer. 

When  the  mexnbers  of  the  convention  first 
came  together;  very  few,  or  rather,  it  is  believed, 
none  of  them  entertained  thoughts  of  altering  the 
liturgy,  any  further  than  to  accommodate  it  to  the 
revolution.  There  being  no  express  authority  to  the 
purpose,  the  contrary  was  implied  in  the  sending  of 
deputies,  on  the  ground  of  the  recommendation  and 
proposal  from  New  York,  which  presumed  that  the 
book,  with  the  above  exception,  should  remain  entire. 
The  only  church  to  which  this  remark  does  not  ap- 
ply, is  that  of  Virginia;  which  authorized  its  deputies 


103 

to  join  in  a  review,  liable  however  to  a  rejection  Ijy 
their  own  convention.  Every  one,  so  far  as  is  here 
known,  wished  for  alterations  in  the  different  offices. 
But  it  was  thought,  at  New  York  in  the  preceding 
year,  that  such  an  enterprize  could  not  be  under- 
taken, until  the  church  should  be  consolidated  and 
organized.  Perhaps  it  would  have  been  better,  if  the 
same  opinion  had  been  continued  and  acted  on. 

But  it  happened  otherwise.  Some  of  the  mem- 
bers hesitated  at  making  the  book  so  permanent,  as 
it  would  have  been  by  the  fourth  article  of  the  re- 
commendatory instrument  Arguments  were  held  in 
favour  of  a  review,  from  change  of  language,  and 
from  the  notorious  fact,  that  there  were  some  matters 
universally  held  exceptionable,  independently  on  doc- 
ti'ine.  A  moderate  review,  fell  in  with  the  sentiments 
and  the  wishes  of  every  member.  Added  to  all  this, 
there  gained  ground  a  confident  persuasion,  that  the 
general  mind  of  the  communion  would  be  so  gratified 
by  it,  as  that  acquiescence  niight  be  confidently  ex- 
pected. On  these  considerations,  the  matter  was 
undertaken. 

The  alterations  were  prepared  by  another  sub- 
division of  the  general  committee,  than  that  to  which 
the  author  belonged.  When  brought  into  the  com- 
mittee, they  were  not  reconsidered;  because  the 
ground  would  have  been  to  go  over  again  in  the  con- 
vention. Accordingly,  he  cannot  give  an  account  of 
any  arguments,  arising  in  the  preparatory  stage  of 
the  business.     Even  in  the  convention,  there  were 


104 

but  few  paints  canvassed,  with  any  material  differ- 
ence of  principle;  and  those  only  shall  be  noticed. 

The  first  controversy  of  this  description  was  in- 
troduced, on  a  motion  made  by  the  Hon.  Mr.  Page  of 
Virginia,  since  governor  of  that  state,  to  leave  out  the 
first  four  petitions  of  the  litany,  and,  instead  of  them, 
to  introduce  a  short  petition  which  he  had  drawn  up, 
more  agreeable  to  his  ideas  of  the  divine  Persons, 
recognized  in  those  petitions.  The  mover  declared, 
that  he  had  no  objection  to  the  invoking  of  our  blessed 
Saviour,  whose  divinity  the  prayer  acknowledged; 
and  whom  he  considered  as  invoked  through  the 
whole  of  the  liturgy;  which,  he  thought,  might  be  de- 
fended by  scripture.  The  objection  lay  to  the  word 
"  Trinity,''  which  he  remarked  to  be  unauthorised 
by  scripture,  and  a  foundation  of  much  unnecessary 
disputation.  But  he  said,  that  the  leaving  out  of  the 
fourth  petition  only,  in  which  only  the  word  occur- 
red, would  leave  the  other  petitions  liable  to  the 
charge  of  acknowledging  three  Gods;  and  therefore, 
he  moved  to  strike  out  the  whole.  The  Rev.  Dr. 
West  of  Baltimore  answered  Mr.  Page,  in  a  speech 
in  which  the  Doctor  appeared  to  be  in  great  agita- 
tion; partly  becaiise,  as  he  said,  he  was  unused  to 
unprepared  speaking;  but  evidently  the  more  so,  from 
his  apprehensions  arising  from  what  he  supposed  to 
be  the  signal  for  aiming  at  very  hazardous  and  es- 
sential alterations.  Perhaps  much  more  would  have 
been  said:  but  during  Dr.  West's  speech,  it  was  whis- 
pered about,  that  there  was  really  no  use  in  going 
into  such  a  controversy;  that  Mr.  Page  had  made  the 


105 

motion,  merely  to  preserve  consistency  of  conduct, 
that  he  had  attempted  the  same  thing  in  the  sub- 
committee, and  well  knew  from  what  had  passed, 
that  there  was  no  prospect  of  success;  but  that  he 
could  not  dispense  with  the  bringing  of  the  question 
before  the  body.  Accordingly,  as  soon  as  Dr.  West 
had  finished,  it  was  put  and  lost  without  a  division  * 
The  next  material  question,  to  the  best  of  the 
recollection  retained,  was  on  a  motion  for  framing 
a  service  for  the  4th  of  July.  This  was  the  most 
injudicious  step  taken  by  the  convention.  Might 
they  not  have  foreseen,  that  every  clergyman,  whose 
political  principles  interfered  with  the  appointment, 
would  be  under  a  strong  temptation  to  cry  down  the 
intended  book,  if  it  were  only  to  get  rid  of  the  offen- 
sive holiday.'^  Besides  this  point  of  prudence,  was  it 
not  the  dictate  of  moderation,  to  avoid  the  intro- 
ducing of  extraneous  matter  of  difference  of  opinion, 
in  a  church  that  was  to  be  built  up.'*  Especially,  when 
there  was  in  contemplation  the  moderating  of  reli- 
gious tests,  was  it  consistent  to  introduce  a  political 
one  ?  It  was  said,  that  the  revolution  being  now  ac- 
complished, all  the  clergy  ought,  as  good  citizens,  to 
conform  to  it;  and  to  uphold,  as  far  as  their  influence 

*  In  a  controversy  since  moved  in  Boston,  Bishop  Provoost 
has  been  named,  as  having  endeavoured  to  accomplish  the  omis- 
sion of  the  acknowledgment  of  the  Trinity.  It  is  not  true:  and 
the  error  may  be  supposed  to  have  arisen  from  what  has  been 
related  of  the  effort  of  Mr.  Page.  There  have  been  various  mis- 
representations of  the  matter;  which  have  made  it  the  more  ne- 
cessary to  state  the  fact. 

o 


106 

extended,  the  civil  system  which  had  been  establish- 
ed. Had  the  question  been  concerning  the  praying 
for  the  prosperity  of  the  commonwealths,  and  for  the 
persons  of  those  who  rule  in  them,  the  argument 
would  have  been  conclusive:  and  indeed,  this  had 
been  done  by  all  the  remaining  clergy;  however  dis- 
affected they  might  have  been,  throughout  the  war. 
But,  the  argument  did  not  apply  to  a  retrospective 
approbation  of  the  origin  of  the  civil  constitutions;  or 
rather,  to  a  profession  of  such  approbation,  conlraiy 
to  known  fact. 

This  was  one  of  the  few  occasions,  on  which  the 
author  used  the  privilege  reserved  by  him  on  his  ac- 
ceptance of  the  presidency,  to  deliver  his  opinion. 
To  his  great  surprize,  there  was  but  one  gentleman 
— and  he  a  professed  friend  to  American  indepen- 
dence— who  spoke  on  the  same  side  of  the  question; 
and  there  were  very  few,  if  any,  who  voted  with  the 
two  speakers  against  the  measure.  Bodies  of  men 
are  more  apt  than  individuals,  to  calculate  on  an  im- 
pHcit  submission  to  their  determinations.  The  pre- 
sent was  a  striking  instance  of  the  remark.  The 
members  of  the  convention,  seem  to  have  thought 
themselves  so  established  in  their  station  of  ecclesi- 
astical legislators,  that  they  might  expect  of  the  many 
clergy  who  had  been  averse  to  the  American  revolu- 
tion, the  adoption  of  this  service:  although,  by  the 
use  oi  it,  they  must  make  an  implied  acknowledg- 
ment of  their  error,  in  an  address  to  Ahnighty  God. 
What  must  further  seem  not  a  little  extraordinary, 
the  service  was  principally  arranged  and  the  prayer 


107 

alluded  to  was  composed,  by  a  reverent!  gentleman, 
(Dr.  Smith)  who  had  written  and  acted  against  the 
declaration  of  independence;  and  was  unfavomably 
looked  on  by  the  supporters  of  it,  during  the  whole 
revolutionary  war.  His  conduct,  in  the  present  par- 
ticular, was  different  from  what  might  have  been  ex- 
pected from  his  usual  discernment:  but  he  doubtless 
calrulated  on  what  the  good  of  the  church  seemed 
to  him  to  require,  in  consequence  of  a  change  of  cir- 
cumstances; and  he  was  not  aware  of  the  effect  which 
would  be  produced  by  the  retrospective  property  of 
the  appointment.  The  greater  stress  is  laid  on  this 
matter,  because  of  the  notorious  fact,  that  the  ma- 
jority of  the  clergy  could  not  have  used  the  service, 
without  subjecting  themselves  to  ridicule  and  cen- 
sure. For  the  author's  part,  having  no  hindrance  of 
this  sort,  he  contented  himself  with  having  opposed 
the  measure;  and  kept  the  day,  from  respect  to  the 
requisition  of  the  convention;  but  could  never  hear 
of  its  being  kept,  in  above  two  or  three  places  be- 
sides Philadelphia.  He  is  thus  particular,  in  record- 
ing the  incidents  attached  to  the  matter  slated,  with 
the  hope  of  rendering  it  a  caution  to  ecclesiastical 
bodies,  to  avoid  that  danger  into  which  human  na- 
ture is  so  apt  to  fall,  of  governing  too  much. 

On  the  subject  of  the  articles,  a  dispute  arose  in 
regard  to  the  article  on  justification:  not  as  it  was  at 
last  agreed  on,  but  as  it  was  proposed  by  the  sub- 
committee. The  objection  was  urged  principally  by 
the  secretary  of  the  convention — the  Kev.  Dr.  Grif- 
fith— and  by  the  author.    The  proposed  article  wa^ 


108 

at  last  withdrawn;  and  the  words  of  the  thirty-nine 
articles,  on  that  subject,  were  restored.  In  this,  there 
is  certainly  no  superaddition  to  what  is  held  generally 
by  divines  of  the  church  of  England.  As  to  the  sub- 
stitute proposed,  the  objection  made  to  it,  was  its  be- 
ing liable  to  a  construction  contrary  to  the  great  evan- 
gelical truth,  that  salvation  is  of  grace.  It  would 
have  been  a  forced  construction,  but  not  to  be  dis- 
regarded. Some  wished  to  get  rid  of  the  new  article 
introduced  concerning  predestination,  without  stating 
any  thing  in  its  place.  This,  it  is  probable,  would 
have  been  better  than  the  proposed  article;  which 
professes  to  say  something  on  the  subject,  yet  in  re- 
ality says  nothing.  But  many  gentlemen  were  of 
opinion,  that  the  subject  was  not  to  be  passed  over 
in  silence  altogether;  and  therefore  consented  to  the 
article  on  predestination,  as  it  stands  on  the  pro- 
posed book.  The  opinion  of  the  author  was,  that  the 
article  should  be  accommodated,  not  to  individual 
condition,  and  to  everlasting  reward  and  punish- 
ment; but  to  national  designation,  and  to  a  state  of 
covenant  with  God  in  the  present  life.  Although  this 
is  a  view  of  the  subject  still  entertained  by  him;  yet 
he  has  been  since  convinced,  that  the  introducing  of 
it  as  an  article  would  have  endangered  needless  con- 
troversy, on  the  meanings  of  the  terms  predestination 
and  election,  as  used  in  the  New  Testament.  If  we 
cannot  do  away  the  ground  of  controversy  heretofore 
laid;  it  at  least  becomes  us,  to  avoid  the  furnishing 
of  new  matter  for  the  excitement  of  it.  As  to  the 
article  in  the  proposed  book;  although  no  one  pro- 


109 

tessed  scruples  against  what  is  there  affirmed,  yet 
there  seemed  a  difficulty  in  discovering  for  what  pur- 
pose it  was  introduced.  The  author  never  met  with 
any  who  were  satisfied  with  it. 

On  the  subject  of  original  sin,  an  incident  occur- 
red, strongly  marking  the  propensity  already  noticed, 
unwarily  to  make  private  opinion  the  standard  of 
public  faith.  The  sub-committee  had  introduced  into 
tliis  article  the  much  controverted  passage,  in  the  7th 
chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  beginning  at 
the  9th  verse;  and  they  had  applied  it  as  descriptive 
of  the  Christian  state.  The  construction  is  exacted  by 
a  theory,  than  which  nothing  was  further  from  that 
of  the  gentleman  (Dr.  Smith)  who  would  have  bound 
this  sense  of  the  passage  on  the  church.  The  inter- 
pretation generally  given  by  divines  of  the  church  of 
England,  makes  the  words  descriptive  of  man's  un- 
regenerate  state;  in  which  there  is  a  struggle  between 
nature  and  grace,  to  the  extent  of  the  terms  made 
use  of  in  Scripture.  This  seems  necessary  to  a  con- 
formity with  the  Christian  character,  as  drawn  in 
innumerable  places.  It  was  on  a  proposal  of  the 
author,  that  the  article  was  altered  in  this  particular; 
although  the  gentleman  who  had  di^afted  it  not  only 
earnestly  contended  for  his  construction  of  the  text, 
but  could  not  be  made  sensible  of  the  danger  which 
would  have  resulted  from  the  establishing  of  that 
construction,  as  a  test  to  every  candidate  for  orders. 

Less  prominent  debates  on  the  subject  of  the  ar- 
ticles, are  not  here  noticed.  Whatever  is  novel  in 
them,  was  taken  from  a  book  in  the  possession  of 


110 

the  Rev.  Dr.  Smith.  The  book  was  anonymous: 
and  was  one  of  the  publications  which  have  abound- 
ed n  England^  projecting  changes  in  the  estabhshed 
articles. 

On  this  business  of  the  review  of  the  Book  of 
Common  Prayer  and  of  the  Articles,  the  contention 
seem  to  have  fallen  into  two  capital  errors,  indepen- 
dently on  the  merits  of  the  alterations  themselves. 
The  first  error,  was  the  ordering  of  the  printing  of 
a  large  edition  of  the  book;  which  did  not  well  con- 
sist with  the  principle  of  mere  proposal.  Perhaps 
much  of  the  opposition  to  it  arose  from  this  very 
thing;  which  seemed  a  stretch  of  power,  designed  to 
effect  the  introduction  of  the  book  to  actual  use,  in 
order  to  prevent  a  discussion  of  its  merits.  The 
other  error,  was  the  ordering  of  the  use  of  it  in 
Christ  church,  Philadelphia;  on  the  occasion  of  Dr. 
Smith's  sermon,  at  the  conclusion  of  the  session  of 
the  convention.  This  helped  to  confirm  the  opinion^ 
of  its  being  to  be  introduced  with  an  high  hand,  and 
subjected  the  clergy  of  Philadelphia  to  extraordinary 
difficulty:  for  they  continued  the  use  of  the  liturgy, 
agreeably  to  the  alterations,  on  assurances  given  by 
many  gentlemen,  that  they  would  begin  it  in  their 
respective  churches,  immediately  on  their  return. 
This  the  greater  number  of  them  never  did:  and 
there  are  known  instances,  in  each  of  which  the 
stipulation  was  shrunk  back  from,  because  some 
influential  member  of  a  congregation  was  dissatisfied 
with  some  one  of  the  alterations.     This  is  a  fact 


Ill  ^ 

which  shows  veiy  stroiio^ly,  how  much  weight  of 
cliaiacter  is  necessary  to  such  changes  as  may  be 
tliought  questionable. 

Section  IV.    Of  sundnj  Measures  and  Events,  con- 
nected icith  the  Acts  of  the  Conventicni  of  [IS  5. 

The  first  particular  claiming  attention  under  this 
head,  is  the  publication  of  the  Book  of  Connnon 
Prayer;  that  is,  of  the  edition  which  has  received  the 
name  of  the  proposed  book. 

Dr.  Smitli,  Dr.  Wharton,  and  the  author,  who 
were  appointed  to  this  service,  gave  their  application 
to  it  without  delay.  But  here,  unexpected  difficulties 
occurred;  which  are  taken  notice  of,  principally  with 
the  view  of  guarding  against  the  like,  in  future  eccle- 
siastical proceedings. 

The  committee  had  been  authorized  to  make 
verbal  alterations;  but  were  restrained  from  depart- 
ing, either  in  form  or  in  substance,  fiom  what  had 
been  agreed  on.  Setting  aside  the  questions  arising 
on  this  distinction;  the  imperfections  evidently  re- 
maining on  some  points  by  reason  of  haste,  and 
which  would  have  been  remedied  had  they  been  at- 
tended to,  and  added  to  this,  the  importunities  of 
some  of  the  clergy,  who  pressed  the  committee  to 
extend  their  powers  pretty  far,  in  full  confidence  that 
the  liberty  would  bo  acceptable  to  all,  were  such,  that 
in  the  end,  they  were  drawn  on  to  take  a  greater 
latitude,  than  ought  to  be  allowed  in  such  a  work. 


112 

Besides  discretion  as  to  verbal  alterations,  the 
committee  were  fully  empowered  on  the  subject  of 
the  tables,  and  on  that  of  the  selection  of  reading 
psalms.  The  author's  proposal,  was  to  take  whole 
psalms;  selecting  such  as  fall  in  with  the  general 
subjects  of  divine  worship;  and  leaving  the  officiating 
minister  to  his  choice,  among  those  which  should  be 
selected.  But  the  other  members  of  the  committee 
were  of  opinion,  that  as  much  should  be  retained  as 
eould  not  well  be  objected  to,  on  the  score  of  being 
unsuitable  parts  of  Christian  prayer  and  praise.  The 
consequence  of  this,  was  a  charge  of  having  treated 
Scripture  irreverently,  by  the  leaving  out  of  particu- 
lar passages,  on  the  principle  of  their  being  offen- 
sive. Although  the  omissions  were  not  made  on  that 
ground;  because  it  is  not  every  part  of  Scripture,  that 
can  be  introduced  into  the  exercise  of  devotion;  yet 
there  would  apparently  have  been  less  colour  for  the 
censure,  on  the  other  plan  of  the  selection  of  entire 
psalms.  The  author  has  been  since  convinced,  that 
instead  of  a  selection  of  psalms  in  any  shape,  a  bet- 
ter way  would  have  been  to  print  the  psalter  entire; 
and  to  leave  every  officiating  minister  to  his  choice, 
from  time  to  time.  This  would  have  less  interfered 
with  the  ideas  of  those,  who,  on  account  of  the  su- 
blime spirit  of  devotion  running  through  the  whole 
body  of  the  psalms,  were  averse  to  the  parting  with 
any  proportion  of  them  from  the  service  of  the 
church.  For  although,  according  to  the  idea  here 
suggested,  it  would  have  been  impossible  to  have 
gratified  every  individual  under  the  proposed  alter- 


11 


o 


native;  yet,  there  jiiiglit  have  been  taken  which  ever 
side  of  it  was  tlie  most  likely  to  be  satisfactory. 

It  has  been  painful  to  the  author,  that  he  has 
found  himself  opposed  in  opinion  to  that  of  some  of 
his  brethren,  whose  views  of  the  subject  have  the 
appeaiance  of  being  opened  to  them  by  the  senti- 
ment of  devotion.  Yet,  he  cannot  perceive  the  pro- 
priety of  putting  into  tlie  mouths  of  a  whole  congrC' 
gation  de^otions  expressive  of  peculiar  states  of  mind; 
and  such  as  are  not  likely  to  be  applicable  to  many 
persons  in  an  ordinary  assembly:  for  instance,  strains 
expressive  of  the  highest  exultation;  and  other  strains, 
expressive  of  tlie  lowest  depths  of  sorrow.  He  is 
aware  of  what  is  argued  in  favour  of  this,  from  the 
sentiment  of  Christian  sympathy;  by  which  every 
member  of  a  church  may  enter  into  feelings,  which 
are  otlierwise  not  his  own:  but  which  he  may  reason- 
ably suppose  to  belong  to  some,  who  are  fellow-mem- 
bers of  the  body.  The  author  respects  the  plea;  but 
cannot  bring  it  within  the  sphere  of  his  own  ideas  of 
the  precept,  to  "  pray  with  the  understanding."  He 
has  heard  of  another  argument  for  the  practice.  It  is 
the  use  of  impressing  the  whole  of  those  excellent 
compositions,  on  the  memories  of  all  the  members  of 
the  church.  But  on  this  plan  it  would  seem,  that 
Scripture  would  be  honoured  still  more,  if,  from  Gene- 
sis to  Revelation,  it  were  embodied  with  the  service. 
This,  however,  could  not  have  been  the  object  of  the 
introduction  of  the  psalms.  There  have  been  urged 
testimonies  from  the  fathers,  demonstrative  of  the 
great  use  of  these  compositions  in  the  early  ages  of  the 


114 

church;  and  its  not  being  recorded  of  any  particular 
psalms,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  rest.  No:  the  whole 
body  of  them  may  have  been  a  iund  of  devotion;  con- 
sistently with  choice  made,  as  subject  and  as  circum- 
stances might  dictate.  He  has  not  yet  found  evidence, 
that  in  the  primitive  church,  as  in  the  church  of  En- 
gland, the  book  was  gone  through  in  a  routine  of  suc- 
cessive portions.  Although  these  are  his  opinions, 
yet  he  laments  the  extent  of  the  innovation,  made  at 
the  period  referred  to;  because  he  believes,  that  the 
aiming  at  so  much  prevented  what  might  have  been 
done  more  effectually;  and  brought  into  universal 
use,  by  allowance  of  the  discretion  which  has  been 
pleaded  for. 

Under  the  foregoing  head,  there  has  been  noticed 
what  is  here  thought  a  great  error  in  the  convention 
— the  printing  of  the  book,  without  waiting  for  the 
reception  of  the  alterations,  and  their  being  in  use. 
A  subordinate  error,  accompanying  the  other,  was 
the  endeavouring  to  raise  a  profit  from  the  book,  al- 
though for  a  charitable  purpose.  It  had  two  bad 
consequences;  that  of  exciting  the  supposition,  that 
the  books  were  made  the  dearer — although,  in  reality, 
this  was  not  the  fact;  and  that  of  inducing  the  com- 
mittee to  send  them  to  the  clergy,  in  the  different 
parts  of  the  continent;  confiding  in  their  exertions, 
for  the  benevolent  purpose  declared.  Several  of  the 
clergy  again  entrusted  them  to  persons,  from  whom 
they  got  no  returns.  Hence  it  happened,  that  when 
the  expenses  of  the  edition  were  paid,  there  was  not 
so  much  left  for  the  charity,  as  to  be  an  adequate 


115 

consideration  for  such  an  undertaking.  The  com- 
mittee were  ai  last  obliged  to  relinquish  the  design, 
ol"  saving  lor  the  charity  the  usual  profit  of  the  book- 
sellers; who,  on  that  change  of  plan,  made  rapid 
sales  of  them. 

Another  bad  effect  of  the  publication  was,  that 
the  English  prelates  were  not  furnished  with  an  ac- 
count of  the  alterations,  so  soon  as  they  should  have 
been,  considering  the  application  that  had  come  be- 
fore them.  For  the  committee,  having  had  good  rea- 
son to  believe  that  the  impression  w^ould  go  on  ra- 
pidly, had  not  furnished  a  copy  of  the  instrument 
containing  the  alterations.  Their  w^aiting  first  for 
paper  from  the  mills,  and  then,  for  one  interfering 
object  and  another  occurring  to  the  printer,  brought 
to  spring  before  the  edition  was  out.  It  is  true,  that 
the  sheets  were  sent  by  parcels  during  the  progress. 
None  how^ever  arrived,  before  the  answer  to  the  ad- 
dress was  sent:  and  this  inattention — or  what  seemed 
such — the  bishops  could  not  account  for;  as  the  arch- 
bishop afterw^ards  distantly  intimated  to  those  who 
received  consecration  in  England.  Hence  arose  the 
caution,  with  which  the  convention  were  answered 
by  the  right  reverend  bench;  a  caution  evidently  to 
be  discerned,  in  their  letter  of  the  24th  of  February 
1786.  For  some  of  the  clergy  in  the  eastern  states, 
liom  what  is  here  supposed  to  have  been  mistaken 
zeal,  liad  been  very  early  in  conveying  to  their  clerical 
acquaintance  in  England,  an  unfavourable  represen- 
tation of  the  spirit  of  the  proceedings:  a  fact,  which 
is  glanced  at  in  the  same  letter.     Although  the  im- 


116 

pression,  thus  produced,  was  so  far  done  away  on  the 
arrival  of  the  book,  as  that  there  remained  no  raciical 
impediment  to  the  gratification  of  the  church,  in 
granting  her  request  made;  which  must  be  evident 
to  every  one  who  reads  their  subsequent  letter;  yet 
it  follows  from  this  narrative,  that  their  misappre- 
hension would  have  been  obviated,  if  the  printing  had 
been  confined  to  the  list  of  the  proposed  alterations. 

For  the  letter  of  the  English  prelates,  see  Appen- 
dix No.  6. 

From  the  letter  of  their  lordships  it  appears,  that 
the  omission  of  the  Article  of  Christ's  descent  into 
Hell,  in  the  Apostles'  Creed,  was  the  thing  prin- 
cipally faulted.  It  was  the  objection  made  by  Dr. 
Moss,  bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells,  that  swayed  in  this 
matter.  A  gentleman  who  had  been  a  member  of  tlie 
convention — Richard  Peters,  Esq. — happening  to 
visit  England  a  few  months  after,  and  having  waited 
on  the  archbishop  at  the  request  ol'  the  committee, 
the  said  bishop  expressed  a  wish  to  see  him;  and,  in 
the  consequent  interview,  declared  very  strongly  his 
disapprobation  of  that  alteration.  It  was  learned 
afterwards  in  England,  from  Dr.  Watson,  bishop  of 
Landaff,  that  the  objection  came  principally  from  the 
quarter  here  noticed.  Indeed  he  expressed  himself 
in  such  a  manner,  as  led  to  the  conclusion,  that  the 
bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells  only  was  the  objector.  No 
doubt,  the  bishops,  generally,  must  have  approved 
of  the  objection;  considering  their  concurring  in 
the  strong  protest  that  came  from  them,  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  omitted  article.    However,  from  the  dif- 


117 

ferent  particulars  attending;  the  transaction,  the  au- 
thor is  disposed  to  believe,  that,  had  it  not  been  for 
the  above-mentioned  circumstance,  they  would  hardly 
h9L\e  started  their  objection  to  the  omission  in  such 
a  manner,  as  carries  the  appearance  of  their  making 
of  a  i^storation  of  the  clause,  a  condition  of  their 
coinpiiance  witii  the  request.  As  to  the  bishop  of 
Landaff^  he  plainly  said,  speaking  on  the  merits  of 
the  subject^  that  he  knew  not  of  any  scriptural  au- 
thority for  the  article,  unless  it  were  the  passage 
m  St.  Peter  (meaning  1.  iii.  19,  20.)  And  this  he 
said  must  be  acknowledged  a  passage  considerably 
involved  in  obscurity.  To  the  two  bishops  who  went 
for  consecration  it  was  very  evident,  that  the  bishop 
of  Landaff  was  far  from  being  attached  to  the  objec- 
tion, in  ^vhich  he  had  concurred.  It  is  probable,  that 
the  same  may  have  been  true  of  many  others  of  the 
bench.  But  when  the  matter  was  pressed  by  a  very 
venerable  bishop,  eminent  as  well  for  his  theological 
leaniing  as  for  an  exemplary  life  and  conversation, 
and  rested  by  him  on  the  ground  of  the  contradiction 
of  an  ancient  heresy,  it  must  have  been  difficult  in 
the  body  to  wave  the  objection,  considering  the  novel 
line  in  which  they  were  acting;  and  their  inability, 
in  a  corporate  capacity,  to  act  at  all. 

Section  V.  Of  Proceedings  of  Conventimis  in  the  States, 
subsequent  to  those  of  tJie  General  Convention. 

For  a  while,  there  was  felt  the  evil  of  the  mistake 
made  in  the  beginning,  of  not  forwarding  copies  of 


118 

the  alterations;  a  mistake,  less  to  be  imputed  to  the 
committee,  than  to  the  convention,  who  had  given  no 
order  on  the  subject;  but  who,  perhaps,  presumed  on 
the  editing  of  the  book,  before  the  other  conventions 
could  be  held.  They  were  held  in  the  months  of  May 
and  June  1786;  very  sooli  after  the  arrival  of  the 
letter  of  the  bishops.  In  New  York,  the  question  of 
ratifying  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  was  kept 
Under  consideration.  In  New  Jersey  they  rejected 
it,  expressing  at  the  same  time  their  approbation  of 
the  other  proceedings  of  the  convention,  except  of 
the  constitution.  In  Pennsylvania,  some  amendments 
were  proposed.  The  same  was  done  in  Maryland. 
No  convention  met  in  Delaware.  In  Virginia,  it  was 
adopted,  with  the  exception  of  one  of  the  rubrics, 
and  with  some  proposed  amendments  of  the  articles; 
many  dissenting  from  such  adoption;  not,  as  the  au- 
thor was  well  informed,  because  of  the  alterations 
made,  but  because  they  were  so  few.  It  is  strange  to 
tell,  that  the  rubric,  held  to  be  intolerable  in  Virgi- 
nia, was  that  allowing  the  minister  to  repel  an  evil 
liver  from  the  communion.  The  author,  some  time 
after,  held  serious  argument  on  the  point,  with  a  gen- 
tleman who  had  been  influential  in  the  state  conven- 
tion. The  offensive  matter  was  not  the  precise  pro- 
visions of  the  rubric,  but  that  there  should  be  any 
provision  of  the  kind,  or  power  exercised  to  the  end 
contemplated.  In  South  Carolina,  the  Book  was  re- 
ceived without  limitation.  On  the  whole  it  was  evi- 
dent, that,  in  regard  to  the  Liturgy,  the  labours  of 
the  convention  had  not  readied  their  object.   It  did 


119 

not  appear,  that  the  constitution  was  objected  to  in 
any  state,  except  in  that  ol'  New  Jersey.  The  pro- 
priety of  the  apphcation  to  the  EngHsli  bishops,  was 
not  contradicted  any  where,  except  in  South  Caro- 
lina: and  even  in  this  state,  there  was  carried  an 
acquiescence  in  it.  Under  tlie  circumstances  stated, 
the  convention  to  be  lield  in  June  1786  was  looked 
forward  to,  as  what  would  either  remedy  the  diffi- 
culty, or  increase  it. 

There  has  been  given  an  account  of  the  pro- 
ceedings of  sundry  conventions  in  the  different  states, 
prior  to  the  meeting  in  New  Brunswick  in  May  1 784. 
At  that  period,  no  convention  had  assembled  in  Vir- 
ginia. But  in  May  1785,  there  was  one  in  the  city 
of  Richmond;  of  the  proceedings  of  which  there  shall 
be  here  given  a  general  account;  for  the  same  reason 
as  in  reference  to  the  proceedings  for  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  other  churches,  comprehended  within  the 
union. 

There  had  been  previously  passed,  in  the  year 
1784,  an  act  of  the  legislature^  incorporating  the 
episcopal  church  in  the  respective  parishes  individu- 
ally, and  as  existing  throughout  the  state:  that  is,  not 
only  in  each  paiish,  the  minister  and  vestrymen 
chosen  by  the  members  of  the  church  were  a  body 
corporate  for  their  own  appropriate  church  and  glebe; 
but  the  act  recognized  a  convention  consisting  of  the 
settled  ministers  and  deputies  from  the  different  ves- 
tries, competent  to  self-government.  In  this  act,  there 
was  no  vestige  of  the  former  establishment:  on  the 
eontrary,  it  contained  provisos,  guarding  against  all 


120 

claims  tending  to  that  point.  Nevertheless,  the  cur- 
rent set  so  strong  against  the  episcopal  churcli,  from 
the  enmity  of  numerous  professors  of  religion,  not  a 
little  aided  by  opinions  inimical  equally  to  the  church 
and  to  the  societies  dissenting  from  her,  that  in  the 
year  1786  the  law  was  repealed,  with  a  proviso 
saving  to  all  religious  societies  the  estates  belonging 
to  them  respectively.  In  the  ear  1798,  this  statute 
also  was  repealed,  as  inconsistent  with  religious 
freedom.* 

In  this  convention,  the  recommendations  passed 
in  New  York,  in  October  of  the  preceding  year,  were 
adopted  with  two  exceptions.  They  refused  the  ac- 
ceptance of  the  fourth,  concerning  the  liturgy,  until 
it  should  be  revised  at  the  expected  meeting  in  Phi- 
ladelphia; and  in  respect  to  the  sixth  article  deter- 
mining the  manner  of  voting,  they  objected  to  it  as  a 
fundamental  article  of  the  constitution;  but  acqui- 
esced in  it  as  regarded  the  ensuing  convention,  re- 
serving a  right  to  approve  or  disapprove  of  its  pro- 
ceedings. 

Their  opinions  as  to  the  principles  which  should^ 
govern  in  the  proceedings  were  detailed  in  instruc- 

*  A  law,  substantially  the  same  as  that  of  1784,  sofar  as  it 
incorporated  the  church  througliout  the  state,  was  passed  by  the 
legislature  of  Maryland  in  the  year  1802,  in  favour  of  the  Ro- 
man Catholics:  which  does  not  appear  to  have  given  offence,  or 
to  have  been  productive  of  bad  effects;  although  the  like  favor 
has  been  refused  to  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  same 
state. 


I 


121 

tion  to  deputies  appointed  by  them  to  the  general 
convention,  and  are  as  follows: 

"  Gentlemen,  during  your  representation  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  we  commend  to  your 
observance  the  following  sentiments  concerning  doc- 
trine and  worship.  We  refer  you  at  the  same  time, 
for  these  and  other  objects  of  your  mission,  to  our 
resolutions  on  the  proceedings  of  the  late  convention 
in  New  York. 

"  Uniformity  in  doctrine  and  worship  will  un- 
questionably contribute  to  the  prosperity  of  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Church.  But  we  earnestly  wish 
that  this  may  be  pursued  with  liberality  and  mode- 
ration. The  obstacles  which  stand  in  the  way  of 
union  among  Christian  societies,  are  too  often  found- 
ed on  matters  of  mere  form.  They  are  surmount- 
able therefore  by  those,  who  breathing  the  spirit  of 
Christianity,  earnestly  labour  in  this  pious  work. 

"  From  the  Holy  Scriptures  themselves,  rather 
than  the  comments  of  men,  must  we  learn  the  terms  of 
salvation.  Creeds  therefore  ought  to  be  simple:  and 
we  are  not  anxious  to  retain  any  other,  than  that 
which  is  commonly  called  the  Apostles'  Creed. 

"  Should  a  change  in  the  liturgy  be  proposed,  let 
it  be  made  with  caution:  and  in  that  case,  let  the  al- 
terations be  free,  and  the  style  of  prayer  continue  as 
agreeable  as  may  be  to  the  essential  characteristics 
of  our  persuasion.  We  will  not  now  decide,  what 
ceremonies  ought  to  be  retained.  We  wish,  how- 
ever, that  those  which  exist  may  be  estimated  ac- 
cording to  their  utility,  and  that  such  as  may  appear 


122 

fit  to  be  laid  aside,  may  no  longer  be  appendages  of 
our  ciiurch. 

"  We  need  only  add,  that  we  shall  expect  a  report 
of  your  proceedings,  to  be  made  to  those  whom  we 
shall  vest  with  authority  to  call  a  convention." 

The  intercourse  with  the  court  of  Denmark,  no- 
ticed in  the  proceedings  of  Pennsylvania,  having  been 
communicated  by  the  governor  of  Virginia  to  the 
body  now  assembled;  their  deputies  were  instructed 
to  lay  the  same  before  the  general  convention. 

This  convention  of  Virginia,  issued  an  address  to 
the  members  of  the  episcopal  church  throughout  the 
state;  in  order  to  excite  a  zeal  for  the  reviving  of  the 
communion. 

They  passed  rules,  forty-three  in  number,  for  the 
government  of  the  church  in  Virginia,  extending  to 
a  great  variety  of  particulars.  In  these  rules,  they 
made  direct  provision  for  the  trial  of  bishops  and 
other  clergymen  by  the  convention:  the  matter,  con- 
cerning which  there  has  been  so  much  dissatisfac- 
tion, because  of  its  not  being  directly  provided  against 
by  the  general  convention  held  within  a  few  months 
after  this  convention  held  in  Richmond. 


G,  Page  20.    Of  the  Conventimi  in  Philadelphia  and. 
Wilmington,  in  1786. 

The  Rev.  David  Griffith,  D.  D.  rector  of  Fairfax 
parish,  Alexandria,  Virginia,  who  had  been  elected 
to  the  episcopacy  in  that  state,  presided  in  this  con- 


123 

vention.  Francis  Hopkinson,  Esq.  was  the  secre- 
tary. The  convention  was  opened  with  a  sermon  by 
the  president  of  the  preceding  convention. 

The  convention  assembled  under  circumstances, 
which  bore  strong  appearances  of  a  dissolution  of  the 
union,  in  this  early  stage  of  it.  The  interfering  in- 
structions from  the  churches  in  the  different  states — 
The  embarrassment  that  had  arisen  from  the  rejec- 
tion of  the  proposed  Book  in  some  of  the  states  and 
the  use  of  it  in  others — Some  dissatisfaction  on  ac- 
count of  the  Scotish  episcopacy — and,  added  to  these, 
the  demur  expressed  in  the  letter  from  the  English 
bishops,  were  what  the  most  sanguine  contemplated 
with  apprehension,  and  were  sure  prognostics  of  our 
falling  to  pieces,  in  the  opinion  of  some,  who  were 
dissatisfied  with  the  course  that  had  been  taken  for 
the  organizing  of  the  church.  How  those  difficulties 
were  surmounted,  will  be  seen. 

In  regard  to  the  interfering  instructions,  they  were 
all  silenced  by  the  motion  that  stands  on  the  journal, 
for  refering  them  to  the  first  convention,  which  should 
meet  fully  authorised  to  determine  on  a  Book  of 
Common  Prayer.  The  instructions,  far  from  proving 
injurious,  had  the  contrary  effect;  by  showing,  as 
well  the  necessity  of  a  duly  constituted  ecclesiastical 
body,  as  the  futility  of  taking  measures,  to  be  re- 
viewed and  authoritatively  judged  of,  in  the  bodies 
of  which  we  were  the  deputies.  Such  a  system  ap- 
peared so  evidently  fruitful  of  discord  and  disunion, 
that  it  was  abandoned  from  this  time.  The  author^ 
who  ha<l  contemplated  the  meeting  of  the  interfering 


124 

instructions  with  the  motion  recorded  as  his  own  on 
the  journal,  was  especially  pleased  with  the  effect  of 
it — the  silence  of  unnecessary  discussion. 

Between  the  deputies  of  the  churches  which  had 
received,  and  those  of  the  churches  which  had  re- 
jected the  proposed  Book,  or  else  been  silent  on  the 
subject;  the  expedient  was  adopted,  of  letting  matters 
remain  for  a  time  in  the  present  state  with  both. 

The  question  of  the  Scotish  episcopacy  gave  oc- 
casion to  some  warmth.  That  matter  was  struck 
at  by  certain  motions  which  appear  on  the  journals, 
and  which  particularly  affected  two  gentlemen  of  the 
body;  one  of  w^hom — the  Rev.  Mr.  Pilmore — had 
been  ordained  by  bishop  Seabury;  and  the  other,  the 
Rev.  William  Smith — the  younger  gentleman  of  the 
convention  of  that  name — had  been  ordained  by  a 
bishop  of  the  church,  in  which  bishop  Seabury  had 
been  consecrated.  The  convention,  did  not  enter  into 
the  opposition  to  the  Scotish  succession.  A  motion, 
as  may  be  seen  on  the  journals,  was  made  to  the 
effect,  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Provoost  seconded  by  the 
Rev.  Robert  Smith  of  South  Carolina;  who  only,  of 
the  clergy,  were  of  that  mind.  But  the  subject  was 
suppressed — as  the  journal  shows — by  the  previous 
question;  moved  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Smith  and  seconded 
by  the  author.  Nevertheless,  as  it  had  been  affirmed, 
that  gentlemen  ordained  under  the  Scotish  succes- 
sion, settling  in  the  represented  churches,  were  un- 
derstood by  some  to  be  under  canonical  subjection 
to  the  bishop  who  ordained  them;  and  as  this  circum- 
stance had  been  urged  in  argument;  the  proposal  of 


125 

rejecting  settlements  under  such  subjection,  was 
adopted;  although  Mr.  Piliiiore  denied  that  any  such 
thing  had  been  exacted  of  him.  As  the  measure  is 
stated  on  the  journal,  to  have  been  carried  on  the  mo- 
tion of  the  author;  he  thinks  it  proper  to  mention,  that 
he  never  conceived  of  there  having  been  any  ground 
for  it,  other  than  in  the  apprehension  which  had  been 
expressed.  This  temperate  guarding  against  the  evil , 
if  it  should  exist,  seemed  the  best  way  ol'  obviating 
measures,  which  might  have  led  to  disputes  with  the 
northern  clerg}'.  The  line  of  conduct  taken,  drew  oif 
from  the  meditated  rejection  some  lay  gentlemen; 
who  would  otherwise  have  warmly  pressed  the  ob- 
jections which  occur,  against  the  circumstance  that 
had  been  imagined. 

The  letter  from  the  English  bishops,  in  answer 
to  the  address  of  the  former  convention,  came  to  hand 
not  long  before  the  meeting  of  this.  All  that  could 
be  done  in  the  present  stage  of  the  business,  was  to 
acknowledge  the  kindness  of  their  letter,  to  repeat 
the  application  for  the  episcopacy,  and  to  re-assure 
them  of  attachment  to  the  system  of  the  church  of 
England.  This  was  accordingly  done,  in  a  letter 
drafted  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Smith,  but  considerably  al- 
tered on  a  motion  of  the  Hon.  John  Jay,  Esq.  who 
thought  the  draft  too  submissive.  It  was  in  substance 
an  expression  of  gratitude  for  the  fatherly  sentiments 
contained  in  the  letter  of  the  right  reverend  prelates; 
an  assurance  of  there  being  no  intention  of  depart- 
ing from  the  constituent  principles  of  the  church  of 
England;  an  expectation  that  the  proposed  alterations 


126 

had  been  received;  and  a  repetition  of  the  request  of 
the  former  address. 

This  second  application  went  with  no  small 
advantage,  from  the  alterations  made  in  the  consti- 
tution, before  the  receiving  of  the  objections  made 
against  it,  on  the  part  of  the  Enghsh  bishops.  The 
issue  of  this  branch  of  the  business  may  serve,  not 
only  for  a  caution  against  being  precipitate,  but  for 
encouragement  under  inconveniences  resulting  from 
the  precipitancy  of  others.  In  the  preceding  year, 
the  points  alluded  to  were  determined  on  with  too 
much  warmth,  and  without  investigation  propor- 
tioned to  the  importance  of  the  subjects.  The  de- 
cisions of  that  day  were  now  reversed — not  to  say 
without  a  division,  but — without  even  an  opposition. 

The  general  temper  of  moderation  displayed  in 
the  letter  of  the  archbishops  caused  it  to  be  a  matter 
of  surprize,  that  the  only  thing  which  looked  like  a 
condition  made  on  the  subject  of  the  Common  Prayer 
Book,  was  the  restoring  of  the  clause  concerning  the 
descent  into  hell,  in  the  apostles'  creed.  The  unde- 
niable fact,  that  the  clause  had  been  an  addition  to 
the  original  creed,  occasioned  a  criticism  on  the  ex- 
pression in  the  letter — its  "integrity;"  to  which,  it 
was  required  to  be  "restored."  Besides,  as  the 
clause  is  not  understood  in  the  general  acceptation 
of  the  words;  and  as  they  who  hold  it  in  the  strict 
sense  must  ground  it  on  very  uncertain  authoiity  of 
Scripture;  it  was  thought,  that  more  stress  was  laid 
on  this  paiticular,  than  the  comjiaratixe  importance 
of  tlie  alteiatjon  merited.  This  can  be  accounted  for 


127 

DO  othenvise,  than  by  the  facts  which  have  been 
mentioned.  It  is  true,  tliat  the  clause  is  stated  to 
have  been  introduced,  in  opposition  to  an  ancient 
heresy — meaning  the  ApolHnarian.  Is  it  necessary, 
then,  that  every  heresy  should  be  denied,  in  so  short 
a  formulary  as  that  of  the  apostles'  creed? 

The  members  of  the  convention  were  doubtful, 
how  far  the  restoring  of  the  Athanasian  creed  was 
contemplated  by  the  archbishops  as  an  essential  con- 
dition. In  that  case,  the  matter  was  desperate;  be- 
cause, although  there  were  some  who  favoured  a 
compliance,  the  majority  were  determined  otherwise: 
among  whom,  were  two  members  present,  who  had 
been  chosen  to  the  episcopacy;  and  who  voted  against 
the  restoration,  as  appears  on  the  journal.  It  was 
however  thought,  that  the  words  did  not  import  ab- 
solute requisition.  The  author  will  here  record  his 
opinion,  afterwards  formed  in  England.  It  is,  that 
the  inclination  of  the  archbishops  on  that  head  was, 
not  to  give  any  trouble,  but  only  to  avoid  any  act  or 
omission,  which  might  have  been  an  implicating  of 
themselves  and  of  their  church.  His  reason  is,  that 
in  one  of  the  conversations  of  Bishop  Provoost  and 
himself  with  the  archbishop  of  Canterbuiy,hebrought 
this  matter  forwards;  evidently  intending  to  say  as 
much  of  it  as  he  did,  and  no  more;  and  not  wishing 
a  discussion  of  the  point.  What  he  said,  was  to  this 
effect.  "  Some  wish,  that  you  had  retained  the  Atha- 
nasian creed:  but  I  cannot  say,  that  I  am  uneasy  on 
the  subject:  for  you  have  retained  the  doctrine  of  it 
HI  your  liturgy;  and  as  to  the  creed  itself,  I  suppose 


128 

you  thought  it  not  suited  to  the  use  of  a  congrega- 
tion/' Then,  without  waiting  to  hear  whether  this 
were  the  reason  or  not,  he  passed  to  another  subject; 
and  never  introduced  that  of  the  Athanasian  creed 
again. 

It  was  a  matter  of  wonder,  that  there  was  not 
laid  in  the  letter,  more  stress  on  the  Nicene  creed, 
than  on  the  Athanasian.  To  the  latter,  there  are 
other  objections  than  its  protest  against  Arianism 
and  Socinianism:  objections  which  have  weight  with 
many,  who  are  not  either  Socinians  or  Arians.  It  had 
been  expected,  that  the  Nicene,  being  the  faith  of 
the  early  church,  would  have  been  more  strongly  in- 
sisted on  by  the  English  bishops;  of  whom  not  more 
than  two  or  three — and  perhaps  they  unjustly — were 
suspected  of  being  at  all  inclined  to  the  opinions  al- 
luded to.  Probably  the  opposition  to  them,  apparent 
in  the  liturgy,  was  what  principally  gave  satisfaction. 
In  what  is  here  said,  it  is  not  designed  to  hold  up  the 
necessity  of  the  use  of  the  Nicene  creed  in  the  Htur- 
gy;  but  there  is  pleaded  for  the  making  of  it  a  part 
of  the  declared  faith  of  the  church;  which  may  be 
done,  without  a  congregational  repetition  of  it.  Even 
to  this  there  is  no  objection  made.  The  distinction 
is  grounded  on  the  circumstance,  that  what  was 
sufficient  as  a  symbol  of  profession  in  the  primitive 
church,  must  be  so  now;  unless  on  the  principle  al- 
ready adverted  to,  of  contradicting  all  errors,  in  the 
forms  of  our  devotions.  To  what  this  leads,  is  very 
evident;  or  rather,  it  is  impossible  to  calculate.   The 


129 

question  as  to  the  Nicene  creed  had  been  determined 
in  the  preceding  session. 

The  moderation  of  the  letter  of  the  archbishops 
on  the  subject  of  the  ecclesiastical  constitution,  and 
especially  the  manner  of  the  objection  to  the  part  of 
it  which  was  certainly  exceptionable,  was  univer- 
sally acknowledged.  Their  conduct  was  the  more 
agreeable  on  this  account,  that  the  offence  had  been 
done  away,  before  the  receipt  of  their  letter.  The 
silence  of  it  in  regard  to  the  including  of  the  laity, 
gave  a  great  advantage  over  those  of  the  clergy,  who 
were  representing  the  introduction  of  that  order  as 
in  opposition  to  correct  principles  of  ecclesiastical 
government. 

The  moderation  which  governed  in  this  conven- 
tion, must  be  conspicuous.  One  principal  reason, 
was  the  moderation  of  the  English  prelates.  They 
who  were  thought  the  least  devoted  to  the  episcopal 
regimen,  acknowledged  the  gi'eat  forbearance  in 
there  being  no  such  high  notions  on  the  subject,  as 
had  been  avowed  by  some  of  the  clergy  on  our  side 
of  the  Atlantic.  Added  to  this,  there  was  noticed 
the  absence  of  the  most  distant  intimation,  of  offence 
taken  at  the  presumed  independency  of  the  American 
church.  For  although  the  bishops  could  not  have 
denied  this,  consistently  with  the  known  principles 
of  their  own  church;  yet  it  had  been  reckoned  on,  as 
a  source  of  difficulty. 

Some  gentlemen,  who  thought  that  the  convention 
had  gone  too  far  as  to  some  points  of  evangelical  doc- 
trine, were  highly  gratified  at  finding  more  zeal  in 

R 


130 

that  respect,  than  perhaps  they  had  calculated  on. 
The  author  had  an  opportunity  of  seeing  the  opera- 
tion of  this  sentiment,  within  a  few  hours  after  his 
receipt  of  the  letter.  There  happening  to  pass,  near 
his  door,  a  worthy  lay-member  of  the  convention  of 
1785,  who  had  been  in  the  habit  of  thinking  the 
clergy  of  the  church  of  England  not  sufficiently 
evangelical,  he  accepted  of  an  invitation  to  walk  in, 
and  hear  the  communication  of  the  bishops.  He  was 
highly  delighted;  and  it  is  not  improbable,  that  this 
very  circumstance  contributed  towards  such  a  zeal 
for  our  ecclesiastical  system,  as  induced  the  same 
gentleman,  at  his  decease,  which  was  a  few  years 
afterwards,  to  bequeath  a  considerable  legacy,  which 
fell  after  the  decease  of  two  relatives  then  living;  the 
income  to  be  applied  towards  the  support  of  the 
bishop  of  the  church  in  Pennsylvania. 

There  was  another  incident,  which  contributed 
to  render  the  proceedings  of  the  convention  tem- 
perate; because  it  must  have  convinced  them,  that  the 
result  of  considerable  changes  would  have  been  the 
disunion  of  the  church.  The  incident  alluded  to, 
was  the  reading  ol  a  memorial  from  the  convention 
in  New  Jersey,  approving  of  some  of  the  proceedings 
of  the  late  general  convention;  but  censuring  others, 
and  soliciting  a  change  of  counsels  in  those  particu- 
lars. The  memorial,  as  was  conjectured  at  the  time, 
and  as  the  author  afterwards  learned  with  certainty, 
was  drawn  up  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  (Jhandier  of  Elizabeth- 
Town.  This  learned  and  respectable  gentleman, 
after  having  been  in  England  during  the  war,  had 


131 

returned  to  his  liamily  and  former  residence;  labour- 
ing uncler  a  cancerous  or  scorbutic  complaint,  wiiich 
had  consumed  a  considerable  proportion  of  his  lace. 
He  had  been  designed  lor  the  contemplated  bishopric 
of  Nava  Scotia,  as  the  author  was  afterwards  in- 
formed by  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury.  His  com- 
plaint became  too  bad,  to  admit  of  his  undertaking 
the  charge.  The  same  cause,  rendered  it  impossi- 
ble for  him  to  take  an  active  part,  in  the  organizing 
of  the  American  church.  The  author  has  no  doubt, 
that  his  lettei-,  written  on  the  present  occasion,  was 
among  the  causes  which  prevented  the  disorganizing 
of  it. 

For  this  memorial,  see  the  Appendix  No.  7. 

The  present  state  of  things  induced  the  conven- 
tion, before  their  adjournment,  to  appoint  a  com- 
mittee; with  power  to  reassemble  them  in  Wil- 
mington, in  the  state  of  Delaware.  Previously  to 
their  adjournment,  they  determined  on  their  second 
address,  already  noticed,  to  the  Enghsh  prelates:  for 
which,  see  the  Appendix  Mo.  8. 

Soon  after  the  rising  of  the  convention,  there 
came  to  the  author's  hands  a  letter  of  the  arch- 
bishops of  Canterbury  and  York:  for  which,  see  the 
Appendix  No.  9. 

Shortly  afterwards,  there  came  a  letter  from  the 
archbishop  of  Canterbury  only,  enclosing  a  recently 
obtained  act  of  parhament,  authorising  the  sohcited 
consecrations.     See  the  Appendix  No.  10. 

On  the  receipt  of  the  letters,  the  committee  ex- 
ercised the  power  committed  to  them,  of  summoning 


132 

the  convention  to  meet  at  Wilmington  on  the  10th 
day  of  October. 

On  the  said  day,  the  convention  re-assembled; 
and,  Dr.  Griffiths  being  absent,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Pro- 
voost  presided.  But,  before  a  relation  of  what  passed 
at  this  meeting,  occasion  is  taken  to  record  the  com- 
ments generally  made  on  the  communications  from 
England. 

There  was  expressed  general  satisfaction,  with 
the  testimonials  to  be  required  of  those  who  might 
come  for  the  episcopacy;  and  especially  with  the 
testimonial  to  be  signed  by  the  members  of  the  ge- 
neral convention.  This  body  had  not  been  without 
their  apprehensions,  that  some  unsuitable  character, 
as  to  morals,  might  be  elected:  and  yet,  for  them  to 
have  assumed  a  control,  might  have  been  an  impro- 
per interference  with  the  churches  in  the  individual 
states.  What  was  demanded  by  the  archbishops, 
went  to  the  point  in  the  general  wish;  and  yet,  was 
not  to  be  complained  of  or  evaded  by  any  individual. 

The  question  to  be  determined  on  at  the  present 
session,  was — Whether  the  American  church  would 
avail  herself  of  the  opportunity  of  obtaining  the  epis- 
copacy; which  had  been  so  earnestly  desired,  ever 
since  the  setdement  of  the  colonies;  the  want  of 
which  had  been  so  long  complained  of;  and  which 
was  now  held  out  in  offer.  When  the  author  con- 
siders how  much,  besides  the  preference  due  to  epis- 
copal government,  the  continuance  or  the  restoration 
of  divine  worship  in  the  almost  deserted  churches. 


133 

their  very  existence  as  a  society,  and  of  course  the 
iiilncsts  of  religion  and  virtue  were  concerned  in  the 
issue,  he  looks  back  with  a  remnant  of  uneasy  sen- 
sation, at  tlie  hazard  which  this  question  run:  and  at 
the  probability  which  then  threatened,  that  the  de- 
termination might  be  contrary  to  vvhat  took  place. 

On  the  meeting  of  the  convention,  a  committee 
were  appointed.     Those  who  acted  in  the  business 
were,  from  New  York,  Rev.  Dr.  Provoost  and  James 
Duane,  Esq. ;  from  New  Jersey,  Rev  Uzal  Ogden 
and  Henry  Waddel,  Esq.;  from  Pennsylvania,  Rev. 
Dr.  White  and  Samuel  Powel,  Esq.;  from  Delaware, 
Rev.  Sydenham  Thorne;  from  Maryland,  Rev.  Dr. 
Smith;  and  from  South  Carohna,  Rev.  Robert  Smith. 
We  sat  up  the  whole  of  the  succeeding  night,  di- 
gesting the  determinations  in  the  form  in  which  they 
appear  on  the  jouinal.     When  they  were  brought 
into  the  convention,  little  difficulty  occurred,  in  re- 
gard to  what  was  proposed  concerning  the  retaining 
of  the  Nicene  and  the  rejecting  of  the  Athanasian 
creed.     But  a  warm  debate  arose,  on  the  subject  of 
the  descent  into  hell,  in  the  apostles^  creed.     Al- 
though this  was  at  last  carried,  agreeably  to  the  pro- 
posal of  the  committee;  yet,  whoever  looks  into  the 
Journal  will  see,  that  the  result  was  not  owing  to  the 
having  of  a  majority  of  votes;  but  to  the  nulhty  of  the 
votes  of  those  churches,  in  which  the  clergy  and  the 
laity  were  divided 

Had  the  issue  been  different,  there  could  have 
been  no  proceeding  to  England  for  consecration  at 


134 

this  time;  because  they  who  went  had  all  along  made 
up  their  minds  not  to  go,  until  the  way  should  be 
opened  by  previous  negotiation.  As  the  matter  now 
stood,  there  was  evidently  no  ground,  on  which  the 
English  bishops  could  have  rejected  the  persons 
sent,  unless  they  had  made  the  Athanasian  creed  an 
essential:  which  wordd  not  have  been  warranted  by 
the  feeble  recommendation  of  their  letter;  not  to  say, 
by  the  impossibility  of  justifying  to  the  world  the 
withholding  of  episcopal  succession,  for  no  other 
reason  than  this,  from  a  church  descended  from  their 
own,  and  once  a  part  of  it.  It  is  here  supposed,  that 
the  very  awkward  appearance  on  the  journal  of  the 
preceding  vote,  must  have  attracted  the  attention  of 
the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  of  those  whom  he 
consulted:  for  he  took  occasion  to  remark,  what  he 
thought  the  exceptionable  plan  of  making  the  records 
on  the  journal  so  particular.  His  cautious  avoiding 
of  minute  discussion,  especially  in  the  way  of  cen- 
sure, induced  us  to  account  for  this  remark  in  the 
way  stated. 

An  address  to  the  two  archbishops  was  drawn 
up  by  this  convention,  to  be  forwarded  by  the  two 
bishops  elect  present  in  it;  who  now  declared  their 
intention  of  embarking  for  England.  See  for  it  the 
Appendix  No.  11. 

It  would  be  a  withholding  of  justice  from  a 
highly  deserving  gentleman,  not  to  notice  his  zeal 
and  probably  his  influence,  in  accomplishing  the 
views  of  the  American  church. 


135 

Tlie  hostility  to  the  Scotch  episcopacy  had  de- 
rived some  weight  from  scruples  on  the  subject, 
which  were  comiimnicated  by  Granville  Sharp,  Esq. 
the  author  of  many  leained  publications;  himself 
being  of  a  religious  and  amiable  character,  and 
zealous  for  the  system  of  the  church  of  England. 
In  a  letter  to  Dr.  Manning,  a  baptist  minister  and 
president  of  Hhode  Island  college,  who  had  been 
recently  in  England,  Mr.  Sharp  had  expressed  his 
doubts  on  the  subject  of  the  Scotch  episcopacy, 
giounded  on  documents  in  his  hands  of  his  grand 
father  Abp.  Sharp;  who  was  so  conspicuous  for  his 
opposition  to  the  arbitrary  measures  of  James  II. 
Dr.  Manning  had  communicated  the  information  in 
such  a  hne,  as  that  it  was  privately  circulated  during 
the  convention  of  1 785.  On  its  being  urged  in  con- 
versation, advantage  was  taken  on  the  othei'  side,^of 
the  singularity  of  the  channel  of  communication. 
This  however  was  accidental;  it  not  appearing,  that 
the  writer  contemplated  any  public  effect.  He  af- 
terwards watched  the  progress  of  the  business,  and 
gave  his  aid  in  ever}  step  of  it. 

Before  the  meeting  on  the  adjournment,  there 
had  been  sent  to  the  author  by  Dr.  Franklin,  then 
president  of  the  state,  a  letter. to  him  from  Mr. 
Sharp,  manifesting  christian  concern  in  the  busi- 
ness pending;  uneasiness  at  some  reports  which 
had  reached  England,  of  our  declining  towards 
Socinianism;  and  satisfaction  from  some  disco- 
veries which  contradicted  the  reports.    In  the  let- 


136 

ter  to  Dr.  Franklin,  there  were  extracts  of  letters 
written  by  Mr.  Sharp  to  the  archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury, evincive  of  interest  taken  in  our  behalf  In 
some  late  publications  in  England,  there  have  been 
erroneous  statements  of  the  agency  of  Mr.  Sharp. 
For  this  reason,  and  to  manifest  the  Christian  zeal 
of  that  worthy  person,  his  communications  are  given 
in  the  Appendix  No.  12. 

Afterwards,  when  Bishop  Provoost  and  the  au- 
thor were  in  England,  they  became  acquainted  with 
the  said  worthy  person;  who  continued  to  interest 
himself  for  the  church.  On  a  certain  day,  he  made 
us  a  visit,  and  expressed  much  solicitude  on  the  sub- 
ject of  our  business;  which  he  supposed,  from  its  not 
having  been  accomplished  immediately,  to  have  met 
with  some  interruption.  He  was  on  his  way  to  visit 
the  archbishop  of  Canterbury;  intending,  he  said,  to 
remind  his  grace  of  some  things,  by  which  he  seemed 
to  stand  pledged,  considering  the  shape  in  which 
the  matter  was  now  before  him.  Mr  Sharp  was 
thanked  for  his  benevolent  zeal,  but  was  requested 
not  to  offer  to  the  archbishop  any  thing  in  the  way 
of  complaint;  and  was  informed,  that  there  was  no 
room  for  any:  his  grace  having  intimated,  that  the 
short  delay  would  be  only  until  the  ensuing  meeting 
of  parliament.  There  was  also  given  to  Mr.  Sharp 
the  reason  of  this  short  delay;  which  will  appear  in 
its  proper  place. 

Before  the  declaration  made  by  two  of  the  bishops 
elect,  of  their  intention  to  embark  for  England,  there 
was  perceived  a  difficulty  likely  to  occur  in  the  case 


137 

©f  Dr.  Provoost,  on  account  of  subscription  to  be 
made  as  proposed  by  the  convention  ol"  17  So,  and 
considered  as  satisfactory  by  the  English  bisliops. 
The  convention  in  New  York  had  held  in  suspense 
the  proposed  liturgy,  including  the  articles.  This 
was  the  faith  and  the  worship  recognized  in  the  con- 
stitution: and  not  yet  adopted  by  the  church  in  which 
Dr.  Pro\  oost  was  to  preside. 

To  meet  this  difficulty,  the  convention  adopted 
the  expedient  of  a  form  to  be  subscribed  by  him,  and 
by  any  other  person  in  the  same  circumstances.  The 
form  bound  the  subscriber  to  the  use  of  the  English 
book  of  Common  Prayer,  except  so  far  as  it  had  been 
altered  in  consequence  of  the  civil  revolution;  until  the 
proposed  book  should  be  ratified  by  the  convention  of 
the  state  in  which  the  party  lived;  and  to  the  use  of 
the  latter  book,  when  so  ratified.  A  promise  to  this 
effect  was  signed  by  Dr.  Provoost,  and  the  docu- 
ment is  in  possession  of  the  author.  It  is  part  of  an 
act  of  the  present  convention,  predicated  on  the  re- 
quisitions of  the  archbishops.  See  for  it  the  Appen- 
dix, No.  13. 

The  provision  thus  made  by  the  convention,  did 
not  altogether  reheve  Dr.  Provoost  from  the  difficulty. 
Subscription  was  to  be  repeated  in  England,  agree- 
ably to  the  requisition  of  the  archbishops,  doubtless 
with  the  concurrence  of  the  bishops  generally.  It 
was  not  probable,  that  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury 
would  accommodate  to  another  form,  without  fur- 
ther consultation;  which  would  at  least  have  occa- 


138 

sioned  trouble  and  delay.  Dr.  Provoost  candidly 
stated  his  situation  in  this  particular  to  the  arch- 
bishop, to  whom  the  disclosure  was  evidently  unex- 
pected. After  a  short  pause,  the  author  remarked, 
that  if  in  England,  any  changes  should  be  made  in 
the  ecclesiastical  institutions,  by  competent  authority, 
and  in  themselves  not  contrary  to  Christian  doctrine, 
the  subscription  cf  the  clergy  would  not — it  was  sup- 
posed— be  hindered  by  the  ordination  vows  by  which 
they  were  now  bound.  On  a  look  of  appeal  to  the 
archbishop  for  the  correctness  of  this  sentiment,  he 
assented  to  it  unequivocally.  He  would  never  have 
given  a  decision  on  the  special  case  of  Dr.  Provoost: 
but  the  supposed  case  had  so  evident  a  bearing  on  it, 
that  the  scruple  was  dismissed.  It  had  rested  on  the 
mind  of  the  Doctor;  who,  on  a  question  of  truth  and 
honour,  would  not  have  erred  on  the  side  of  laxity,  in 
regard  to  promise  to  be  pledged. 


H.  Page  21.    Of  Personal  Intercourse  with  the  Arch- 
bisJiop  of  Canterbury. 

Sundry  matters  having  passed,  in  this  intercourse, 
which  inay  be  thought  connected  with  the  subject  of 
these  sheets;  the  author  supposes  that  it  may  be  of 
use,  to  insert  in  this  place  certain  letters,  which  he 
addressed  from  England  to  the  committee  of  the 
church  in  Pennsylvania;  with  notes  taken  for  another 
letter,  intended  to  have  been  written,  if  an  opportu- 
nity had  offered.   The  committee  were  the  Rev.  Dr. 


139 

Samuel  Magaw,  tlie  Rev.  Robert  Blackwell,  and  the 
Rev.  Joseph  Pilmore,  of  the  clergy;  and  of  the  laity, 
the  Hon.  Francis  Hopkinson,  Dr.  Gerardus  Clark- 
sou,  and  John  Swanwick,  Esquire. 

Westininstei^  December  6,  1786. 
Gentlemen, 

I  think  it  my  duty,  and  it  is  my  inclination,  to 
embrace  the  earliest  opportunity  of  acquainting  you 
with  my  arrival  in  England;  and  of  the  progress 
made,  by  the  blessing  of  God,  in  the  important  busi- 
ness of  my  voyage. 

On  Thursday,  the  2d  of  November,  I  embarked 
at  New  York,  in  company  of  my  \vorthy  friend 
and  brother  Dr.  Provoost.  The  next  day,  we  left 
land.  After  a  passage,  in  which  we  had  some  tem- 
pestuous, although  for  the  most  part  pleasant  wea- 
ther, we  made  the  lights  of  Scilly,  on  Monday  the 
20th  of  the  same  month;  and  the  next  day  landed, 
in  good  health,  at  Falmouth.  In  giving  this  account 
of  my  prosperous  voyage,  I  am  happy  in  the  convic- 
tion, that  1  am  writing  to  those,  who,  as  well  from 
private  friendship,  as  from  their  interest  in  the  great 
concerns  of  the  church,  will  rejoice  with  me  on  the 
occasion;  and  join  me  in  devout  acknowledgments 
to  almighty  God. 

Owing  to  sundiy  incidents,  we  did  not  reach  the 
metropolis,  until  Wednesday  the  29th;  when  we  made 
it  our  first  business  to  wait  on  his  excellency  Mr. 
Adams;  who  politely  returned  our  visit,  on  the  even- 


140 

ing  of  the  same  day;  and  finding  that  it  was  our  wish 
to  be  introduced  by  him  to  his  grace  the  archbishop 
of  Canterbury,  readily  undertook  the  office;  and 
named  Friday  for  the  purpose.  Accordingly,  on  that 
day  we  accompanied  Mr.  Adams  to  the  palace  of 
Lambeth.  His  grace,  having  received  no  intimation 
of  the  intended  visit,  was  not  at  home.  In  the  even- 
ing, Col.  Smith,  the  secretary  of  the  legation,  waited 
on  him,  to  request  the  appointment  of  an  hour:  he 
named  12  o'clock,  on  Monday.  At  that  time,  we 
again  accompanied  Mr.  Adams  to  Lambeth;  where 
we  had  a  polite  and  condescending  reception,  en- 
tirely answerable  to  the  sentiments  which  we  had 
been  taught  to  entertain,  of  this  great  and  good  arch- 
bishop. 

After  some  questions  on  his  part  respecting  our 
passage,  we  presented  our  papers:  on  which  we  were 
asked — Whether  we  expected  another  gentleman,  in 
time  to  be  consecrated  with  us.'^  In  answer  to  this, 
his  grace  was  informed,  that  the  Rev.  Dr.  Griffith, 
the  only  gentleman  recommended  by  the  general 
convention  besides  the  present  company,  would  not, 
in  all  probability,  be  over  before  the  spring.  Here  I 
must  note,  that  my  saying  of  this  was  in  consequence 
of  a  letter  received  from  that  gentleman,  after  my 
embarkation. 

Dr.  Provoost  then  mentioned,  that  there  was  a 
peculiarity  in  the  charter  of  his  church,  requiring  his 
presence  at  the  annual  election  at  Easter:  on  which 
his  grace  said,  that  he  had  no  inclination  to  detain 


141 

us  so  long;  and  indeed  would  give  us  no  delay,  pro- 
vided our  papers  should  be  found  satisfactory;  which 
he  presumed  would  be  the  case.  But  at  the  same 
time  he  apologised  lor  his  postponing  of  our  business 
for  t^vo  or  three  days;  being  engaged  in  some  eccle- 
siastical business,  depending  before  the  privy  council; 
and  also  in  some  concerns  of  a  college,  of  which  he 
is  the  visitor.  He  added,  that  when  this  was  done, 
he  would  see  us  again.  In  the  course  of  the  con- 
versation, the  archbishop  asked  me,  whether  I  had 
received  the  letter  signed  by  himself  alone,  in  which 
he  had  mentioned,  that  three  was  a  sufficient  num- 
ber to  be  sent  for  consecration;  and  whether  we  un- 
derstood it  to  be  the  sentiment,  that  three  only  should 
come.  On  his  being  told,  that  the  letter  had  been 
received,  and  so  understood,  he  gave  the  reason — 
That  as  the  present  service  was  asked  of  the  church 
of  England,  in  consequence  of  an  extraordinary  ex- 
igency, it  seemed  proper  to  do  no  more  in  the  affair, 
than  the  exigency  required;  and  to  leave  all  subse- 
quent measures  for  the  continuing  of  our  ministry, 
to  be  taken  among  ourselves. 

This  is,  gentlemen,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection, 
the  substance  of  the  conversation;  and  we  shall  be 
daily  in  expectation  of  renewing  our  intercourse  with 
his  grace. 

'^Having  paid  our  respects  in  the  first  place  to  the 
archbishop,  we  were  of  opinion,  that  it  was  our  duty 
to  wait  on  the  lord  bishop  of  London;  his  lordship's 
predecessors   having   been  the   diocesans    of  our 


142 

ehurch:  although  we  understood,  that  the  present 
bishop — the  venerable  Dr.  Lowth— had  undergone  a 
decay  of  his  great  talents;  as  well  as  laboured  under 
grievous  bodily  complaints.  Accordingly  we  waited, 
yesterday,  on  the  Rev.  Mr.  Eaton,  his  chaplain;  by 
whom  I  had  been  hospitably  entertained,  when  for- 
merly in  this  country.  Mr.  Eaton,  after  much  con- 
versation concerning  the  affairs  of  our  church,  stated 
to  us  his  lordship's  situation;  mentioning,  among 
other  things,  his  debility  of  mind  to  be  such,  that 
although  he  should  answer  a  question  properly  and 
pointedly,  yet  he  might,  in  half  an  hour,  forget  both 
the  question  and  the  answer:  and  his  indisposition 
was  so  considerable,  that  a  morning  might  be  ap- 
pointed; and  yet,  when  the  time  should  come,  his 
lordship  might  be  incapable  of  receiving  us.  These 
things  he  thought  it  necessary  to  mention;  but  doubt- 
ed not,  that  there  would  be  named  an  early  day  for 
our  introduction.  Accordingly,  in  the  evening,  we 
received  a  note  from  Mr.  Eaton,  appointing  to-mor- 
row morning  for  the  interview. 

1  have  the  pleasure  of  acquainting  you,  gentle- 
men, that  we  find  from  many,  who  had  conversed 
with  the  archbishop  before  our  arrival,  of  there  not 
being  the  least  doubt,  of  our  church's  having  retained 
the  essential  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  as  held  by  the 
church  of  England. 

These,  gentlemen,  are  the  particulars,  which  I 
have  thought  it  important  to  convey  to  you.  By  the 
next  packet  I  intend,  if  it  please  God,  to  acquaint  you 


<2 


14d 

with  any  further  progress  that  may  be  made  in  the 
business  conunitted  to  me:  and  I  remain,  in  the 
mean  time,  witli  my  prayers  for  your  health  and 
happiness. 

Your  affectionate  brother, 

and  very  humble  servant, 

WM.  WHITE. 
TJie  Committee  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  Comr 
monwealth  of  Pennsylvania. 

P.  S.  I  trust,  there  will  be  no  occasion,  that  my 
friends  should  write  to  me  after  the  receipt  of  this. 
But  they  will  not  expect,  that  in  the  present  stage 
of  the  business,  I  should  lix  the  time  of  my  leaving 
England. 

Westminster,  January  1 ,  1 787. 
Gentlemen, 

I  embrace  the  opportunity  of  the  packet  of  this 
month,  to  communicate  to  you  the  present  state  of  the 
business,  on  which  I  am  in  England. 

Between  the  writing  of  my  last  and  our  hearing 
from  the  archbishop,  there  intervened  about  a  fort- 
night: during  which  Dr.  Provoost  and  myself  had 
been  informed  by  several  who  had  seen  his  grace, 
particularly  by  the  lord  bishop  of  Oxford,  that  our 
papers  were  satisfactory.  The  delay  was  accounted 
for,  by  certain  business  that  required  immediate  at- 
tention. At  the  end  of  that  term,  we  received  an  in- 
vitation from  the  archbishop  to  dine  with  him,  on 
the  21st.     We  accordingly  attended;  and  had  every 


144 

reason  to  be  satisfied  with  our  reception  and  enter- 
tainment. His  grace  did  not  introduce  the  subject 
of  our  apphcation  to  him,  until  our  leaving  the  com- 
pany; when  he  stepped  aside  with  us;  and  mentioned, 
as  near  as  my  memory  serves,  to  the  following  ef- 
fect— That  having,  from  the  beginning,  consulted 
the  Bench  of  Bishops  on  this  business,  he  was  de- 
sirous of  taking  their  opinion,  as  to  the  manner  of 
accomplishing  it — That  he  had  shown  our  papers  to 
a  few,  who  were  in  town — That  he  expected  to  see 
more  of  them  in  a  short  time — And  that  he  would 
then  see  us  again.  We  have  not  heard  from  him 
since:  for  the  greater  number  of  the  bishops  are  still 
at  their  respective  dioceses;  although  expected  to  be 
in  town  soon. 

In  my  last,  I  mentioned  our  intention  of  waiting 
on  the  lord  bishop  of  London;  as  an  instance  of  the 
respect  which  we  thought  due  from  us,  to  the  suc- 
cessor of  the  former  diocesans  of  America.  We  ac- 
cordingly attended,  on  the  day  appointed  by  himself, 
and  were  courteously  received  by  this  celebrated 
prelate;  who  expressed  himself  gratified  by  our  wait- 
ing on  him,  and  asked  for  our  address,  as  intending 
to  see  us  again:  which,  however,  can  hardly  happen ; 
as  his  lordship  has  been  since  taken  extremely  ill; 
and,  I  believe,  continues  in  imminent  danger.* 

*  We  probably  saw  this  eminent  man  on  the  last  day  on 
which  our  visit  could  have  been  received.  His  appearance  was 
that  of  health,  and  he  followed  us  to  the  head  of  his  stairs,  with- 
out any  appearance  of  debility.  We  understood,  that  he  had  a 
violent  return  of  his  disease  (the  stone)  the  next  day;  and  he 


145 

I  fully  expected  to  have  mentioned  to  you,  gen- 
tlemen, by  this  opportunity,  the  time  ot"  the  accom- 
plishment of  the  purpose,  for  which  you  desired  me 
to  come.  Although  disappointed  in  this,  I  can  ex- 
press to  you  my  full  persuasion,  that  the  delay  does 
not  arise  from  any  cause,  which  can  defeat  our 
object. 

With  my  constant  prayers  for  yourselves  and 
our  whole  church,  I  am,  gentlemen. 

Your  affectionate  brother, 

WiM.  WHITE. 
The  Committee  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  Pennsylvania. 

P.  S.  January  2.  This  morning,  the  lord  bishop 
of  Landalf  did  us  the  honour,  on  his  coming  to  town, 
io  call  on  us,  without  waiting  for  our  being  intro- 
duced to  him;  and  to  desire  us  to  appoint  a  day,  for 
our  dining  with  him.  I  mention  this,  to  enable  me 
to  confirm  the  sentiment  already  expressed:  because 
his  lordship  not  only  showed  the  utmost  good  will  as 
to  our  business,  but  seemed  surprized  that  it  w  as  not 
already  finished;  until  we  mentioned  the  reason  of 
the  archbishop,  whom  his  lordship  had  not  seen. 

died  very  soon  after  our  departure  from  England.  In  the  con- 
versation of  about  an  hour  which  we  held  with  him,  he  made 
various  inquiries  concerning  America,  and  was  the  most  pointed 
on  the  subject  of  slavery.  On  being  informed  of  the  then  late  act 
in  Pennsylvania  for  the  gradual  abolition  of  it,  he  answered  with 
strong  emphasis— That  is  a  very  good  measure. 

T 


€ 


3  46 

Westminster^  January  20,  1787. 
Gentlemen, 

I  now  address  you,  with  the  pleasing  prospect  of 
being  soon  able  to  re-embark  for  America,  after  the 
accomplishment  of  the  business  committed  to  me. 
It  is  possible,  indeed,  that  I  may  arrive  before  the 
vessel,  by  which  this  letter  will  be  conveyed.  Even 
in  that  case,  it  may  serve  for  a  continuation  of  the 
narrative  of  the  proceedings  of  my  honoured  col- 
league and  myself  And  as  there  is  entire  harmony 
between  us,  both  of  sentiment  and  of  affection;  I 
shall,  for  the  ^ke  of  brevity,  omit  distinguishing  be- 
tween us  in  the  following  account;  using  the  plural 
number,  in  stating  any  thing  that  was  said  by  either 
of  us  on  the  occasion. 

After  my  last  letter,  we  received  from  the  arch- 
bishop, through  a  friend  who  had  spoken  to  him  on 
the  subject,  full  satisfaction,  that  the  delay  arose  from 
no  other  cause,  than  his  grace's  waiting  for  the  ar- 
rival of  the  bishops;  and  that  it  was  his  intention  to 
finish  the  transaction,  in  time  for  our  departure  by 
the  February  packet:  it  being  the  opportunity',  by 
which  he  had  understood  from  us,  that  it  was  our 
inclination  to  return. 

The  queen's  birth-day,  and  the  near  approach  of 
the  meeting  of  parliament,  have  brought  to  town 
many  ot  the  right  reverend  bench.  Accordingly,  we 
received  yesterday  a  note  from  the  archbisliop,  de- 
siring us  to  call  on  him  this  morning.  We  attended, 
and  had  a  conversation  of  two  hours;  of  which  it  is 


147 

now  my  intention  to  give  you  the  substance;  as  far 
as  my  memory  serves,  and  as  is  connected  with  the 
affairs  of  our  church. 

His  grace  began  with  expressing  his  hopes,  that 
tve  had  not  thought  him  inattentive  to  our  business. 
He  said,  that  soon  after  our  arrival,  he  had  mention- 
ed the  matter  to  the  king;  that  the  necessary  powers 
from  government  would  be  soon  obtained;  and  that 
the  consecration  should  be  either  on  the  28th  instant, 
or  on  that  day  seven-night;  and  that  the  latter  day 
the  best  suited  his  convenience,  and  should  be  made 
the  appointment,  provided  it  were  consistent  with 
our  intentions  of  returning  by  the  packet. 

After  making  the  suitable  acknowledgments  of 
his  goodness,  and  declaring  our  full  conviction,  that 
he  had  used  all  possible  expedition,  we  said,  that  the 
day  after  the  last  mentioned  Sunday  was  the  intend- 
ed time  of  our  departure,  in  the  event  of  our  being 
ready  for  the  packet;  and  that  therefore,  we  could 
not  press  for  the  matter  to  be  expedited,  sooner  than 
was  convenient  to  his  grace. 

He  then  gently  touched  on  the  subject,  in  regard 
to  which  our  last  convention  had  not  complied  with 
the  recommendation  of  the  two  archbishops.  He 
said,  that  some  were  dissatisfied  with  the  omission  of 
the  creed,  here  alluded  to;  that,  for  his  part,  he  was 
not  uneasy  on  the  head,  being  satisfied,  that  the  doc- 
trine of  the  creed  is  retained,  in  many  places  of  the 
Prayer  Book;  but  that,  however,  he  did  not  like  the 
manner,  in  which  it  appeared  on  the  minutes:  pre- 
fering  the  mode  of  doing  business  used  in  all  the 


148 

bodies  with  which  he  was  acquainted;  among  whom, 
it  was  customary  to  mention  the  business  brought 
before  them,  and  the  result  of  the  debate,  without 
specifying  the  votes  of  the  individual  members. 
Whether  his  grace  had  here  a  view  to  the  votes  of 
those  whom  he  was  addressing,  in  regard  to  the 
Athanasian  creed,  we  did  not  know:  but  the  answer 
which  he  received  was  to  this  purpose — That  if  the 
convention  had  taken  a  wrong  method  in  the  above 
particular,  it  proceeded  from  their  wish  to  show 
themselves  open  and  candid;  and  that  the  church,  in 
one  of  the  states,  had  instructed  their  deputies  to 
move  for  the  so  specifying  of  the  votes. 

His  grace  then  said,  that  in  the  beginning  of  the 
business,  there  had  been  many  reports  and  appre- 
hensions; that  this  required  of  the  bishops  to  be  cir- 
cumspect; and  that  even  when  our  proceedings  ar- 
rived, there  were  some  things,  which  they  could  not 
but  wish  otherwise.  And  here,  said  he,  I  am  not 
alluding  to  the  liturgy,  but  to  the  very  easy  manner, 
in  which  the  degradation  of  bishops  seems  allowed 
to  be  done.  It  was  remarked  to  his  grace,  that  the 
offensive  article  had  been  altered.  He  answered — 
Yes,  and  much  for  the  better. 

From  this,  his  grace  passed  to  some  remarks 
concerning  the  Psalter.  He  said,  that  whatever  use 
there  might  be  in  leaving  out  some  parts  of  the 
Psalms,  he  saw  no  propriety  in  altering  the  con- 
nexion, in  the  manner  in  which  we  had  done  it.  He 
did  not  mean  to  undervalue  the  abilities  of  those  em- 
ployed in  it;  but  thought  it  was  a  work  of  more  time 


149 

and  difficulty,  than  they  seem  to  have  conceived. 
From  a  desire  of  taking  his  grace's  meaning  pre- 
cisely on  this  subject,  it  was  here  mentioned  to  him, 
that  if  we  understood  him,  he  did  not  object  to  the 
omission  of  some  portions  of  the  Psalms,  from  the 
worship  of  the  church.  The  reply  was — He  had 
not  fully  considered  that  subject;  and  only  meant  at 
present  to  remark  on  the  connecting  of  portions  to- 
gether, in  such  a  manner  as  might  break  the  con- 
nexion, and  alter  the  sense  of  the  original  composi- 
tions: especially  of  such  of  them  as  are  prophetical. 
But  his  grace  did  not  allege,  that  the  sense  had  been 
actually  altered,  in  any  place. 

In  speaking  of  the  liturgy,  the  archbishop  ex- 
pressed his  hopes,  that  it  would  not  be  a  matter 
liable  to  alterations,  at  every  convention.  He  was 
answered,  that  although  it  was  still  submitted  to  the 
church  as  a  proposed  liturgy,  so  as  to  allow  of  the 
correction  of  any  part  of  it,  which  might  appear,  on 
mature  consideration,  to  have  been  hastily  done;  yet 
there  were  no  description  of  men  in  this  country, 
who  would  more  object  to  the  leaving  of  the  liturgy 
in  so  fluctuating  a  state,  than  the  great  body  of 
episcopalians  in  America. 

The  archbishop  took  notice  of  a  want  of  formal- 
ity, in  our  not  having  brought  a  regular  instrument 
of  our  election:  although  he  allowed,  that  our  election 
was  fully  implied  in  the  papers  which  had  been  pro- 
duced; so  as  to  leave  no  doubt  of  the  fact.  This 
naturally  led  us  to  speak  of  the  forms  of  recom- 
mendation, prescribed  by  the  two  archbishops.     In 


150 

respect  to  these  we  ventured  to  declare,  that  the 
church  at  large  in  America  acknowledged  great  obli- 
gations; and  would  expect  that  their  future  bishops 
should  make  it  a  rule  of  their  conduct.    He  replied, 
that  the  appointment  of  persons  to  the  episcopal  cha- 
racter was  of  the  highest  consequence;  and  earnestly 
wished,  that  it  may  be  managed  with  great  discre- 
tion in  America;  and  that  he  thought  himself  obliged 
to  use  the  precautions  which  we  had  mentioned. 
For,  said  he,  gentlemen,  you  were  strangers  to  me; 
lalthough  I  had  heard  you  respectfully  spoken  of.   At 
the  same  time,  there  were  some  who  apprehended, 
that  persons  of  a  very  unsuitable  description  would 
be  sent.     I  thought  it  improbable — he  continued — 
that  general  and  particular  conventions  would  unite 
in  recommending  such  persons;  and  yet  it  was  my 
determination,  that  if  such  should  be  sent,  and  under 
circumstances  carrying  full  evidence  of  the  unsuit- 
ableness,  not  to  have  troubled  the  bishops  with  the 
affair,  but  to  have  taken  the  brunt  of  a  refusal  on 
myself     The  answer  was  to  this  effect — That  if 
there  had  been  any  danger  of  such  a  measure,  the 
requisitions  of  the  two  archbishops  must  have  opera- 
ted as  a  prevention:  that  we  trusted,  however,  there 
was  not  a  sufficient  number  of  our  brethren,  in  any 
state,  capable  of  wilfully  imposing  an  improper  cha- 
racter on  his  grace;  and  that  therefore,  if  any  such 
character  had  been   recommended,   it  must  have 
been  some  years  ago,  and  from  the  want  of  due  in- 
formation. 

His  grace,  in  some  part  of  the  conversation,  was 
led  to  speak  of  the  act  of  parliament:  in  respect  to 


151 

vvhicl],  tve  took  notice  of  the  clause,  requiring  the 
consent  of  the  king,  under  his  sign  manual.  This 
clause,  we  told  him,  we  had  understood  from  private 
information,  not  to  have  heen  in  the  act,  as  proposed 
by  the  bishops.  We  ventured  to  say,  however,  tliat 
tlie  principle  of  the  restriction  was  well  understood 
in  America,  so  as  to  occasion  no  offence  there.  The 
archbishop  answered,  that  it  was  not  in  the  act,  as 
proposed  by  the  bishops;  but  that  he  thought  it  a  very 
proper  clause;  and  that  it  was  particularly  acceptable 
to  himself;  since  otlierwise,  the  matter  would  have 
rested  wholly  with  him,  which  he  did  not  wish. 

He  introduced  a  subject  which  was  unexpected 
to  us;  and  may  influence  measures  in  America.  He 
said,  that,  when  bishop  of  Bangor,  he  had  presented 
the  bishop  elect  of  the  Isle  of  Man  to  the  archbishop 
of  York  for  consecration;  and  that  none  were  con- 
cerned in  the  consecration,  besides  the  archbishop 
and  himself:  that  he  had  set  on  foot  an  inquiry,  re- 
specting past  usage  in  the  province  of  York;  and  that 
if  the  practice  had  been  the  same  in  times  past,  per- 
haps it  might  prove  unnecessary  for  another  gentle- 
man to  come  from  America.  In  the  conversation 
that  ensued  on  this  head,  it  was  thrown  out  on  our 
side,  that  if  the  ancient  canonical  number  should  be 
dispensed  with,  perhaps  doubts  might  subsist  in  the 
minds  of  some,  in  regard  to  the  validity;  and  that 
such  an  apprehension  might  be  productive  of  some 
irregularity  and  inconvenience.  To  this  the  arch- 
bishop replied,  that  the  latitude,  if  left,  would  be  in- 
tended merely  for  our  accommodation;  but  was  by 


152 

no  means  to  prevent  the  coming  over  of  a  third  ap- 
plicant, if  that  should  be  thought  eligible  by  us. 

I  think  it  a  matter  worthy  to  be  mentioned  in  this 
letter,  that  the  archbishop  informed  us  of  thoughts 
entertained  by  him,  of  giving  to  the  world  a  publica- 
tion, relative  to  the  business  before  us;  statmg  the 
reasons  influencing  him  in  the  measures  which  he 
had  adopted.  We  took  the  liberty  of  expressing  our 
hearty  approbation  of  the  proposal:  and  as  his  grace 
did  not  seem  to  have  come  to  a  determination,  we 
hoped  that  he  would  find  no  objection  to  it,  on  further 
consideration. 

After  discussing  the  above  mentioned  subjects, 
more  fully  than  I  can  be  expected  to  relate;  we 
apologised  for  taking  up  so  much  of  his  grace's  time, 
and  arose  to  take  our  leave.  But  we  were  encour- 
aged by  the  condescension  shown,  to  mention,  that  as 
the  king  was  to  open  the  parliament  in  a  few  days,  it 
would  be  a  gratification  to  us  to  gain  admittance  to 
the  house  of  lords,  on  that  occasion,  through  the  good 
offices  of  his  grace.  The  archbishop  took  this  ti-ee- 
dom  in  very  good  part;  desired  us  to  consider  him  as 
on  terms  of  friendship;  and  assured  us,  that  he  would 
send  us  a  note  of  admission,  and  express  in  it  the 
time,  which  his  majesty  should  appoint  for  his  coming 
to  the  house,  in  order  to  prevent  our  unnecessary 
waiting.* 

I  suppose,  that  this  incident  reminded  the  arch- 
bishop of  a  question  which  had  been  asked  hijn  by 

*  The  promise  was  fulfilled 


153 

Mr.  Ailanis,  at  our  first  interview — Whether  it  would 
not  be  proper  for  us  to  wait  on  the  king;  and  whe- 
ther, in  that  case,  tlie  archbishop  or  himself  would 
be  the  proper  person  to  introduce  us.  To  this  ques- 
tion, the  archbishop  had  answered  at  the  time,  that 
the  first  step  was  for  himself  to  be  satisfied,  before 
any  notice  could  properly  be  given  to  the  king.  In 
relation  to  this  subject,  his  grace  now  said,  that  if 
we  were  to  be  introduced  to  the  king,  it  ought  to  be 
on  the  giound  of  thanking  him,  for  his  leave  given 
for  the  ensuing  consecration,  under  his  sign  manual; 
and  that  whether  this  would  be  liable  to  any  objec- 
tion or  not,  we  must  judge.  We  made  no  scruple 
to  answer,  that  there  could  be  no  objection  to  it, 
arising  out  of  the  relations  in  which  we  stood.  He 
then  said,  that  he  supposed  Mr.  Adams  chose  to  in- 
troduce us  himself.  W^e  answered,  that  although 
the  proposal  originated  with  Mr.  Adams,  yet  we  be- 
lieved he  wished  to  leave  it  to  his  grace,  to  determine 
on  the  manner.  To  this  he  replied,  that  he  would 
consider  of  it  further,  and  let  us  know. 

His  grace  then  said,  that  he  was  desirous  of  ap- 
pointing some  day  for  our  dining  ^vith  him  again; 
intending  to  ask  some  of  the  bishops  to  meet  us,  and 
also  some  of  our  friends.  This  led  us  to  ask  his 
grace's  opinion,  as  to  the  propriety  of  our  calling  at 
the  houses  of  all  the  bishops;  in  order  to  thank  them 
for  the  good  oflice  soon  to  be  done,  through  the  fa- 
vor of  the  whole  bench,  although  especially  of  his 
grace,  to  the  episcopal  church  in  Auj  erica.    He  an- 

u 


154 

svvered,  that  he  thought  it  proper,  and  that  it  would 
be  very  kindly  taken. 

As  the  gentlemen  to  whom  I  am  writing  are 
members  of  the  corporation  for  the  widows'  fund;  it 
may  be  proper  for  me  to  inform  them,  that  I  stated 
to  his  grace  the  appointment  of  Dr.  Smith,  Mr.  Chew, 
and  myself,  for  the  addressing  of  the  society  for  the 
propagation  of  the  Gospel,  respecting  the  arrears  due 
on  their  former  grants.  He  promised  to  consider  of 
the  foundation  of  the  intended  appHcation;  and  for 
that  purpose,  as  I  had  mentioned  my  being  furnished 
with  a  former  abstract  of  the  proceedings  of  our  cor- 
poration, noticing  the  grants,  he  desired  me  to  send 
it  to  him. 

I  have  given  you,  gentlemen,  a  long  and  \  am 
afraid  tedious  account  of  this  conversation;  but  I 
hope  that  the  motive  will  excuse  me;  which  is  my 
desire  of  your  having  as  complete  a  view  as  possible, 
of  the  accomplishing  of  a  negociation  so  important, 
as  we  all  conceive,  to  our  communion  not  only  of 
the  present,  but  also  of  every  future  generation. 

That  God  may  bless  the  event,  which,  under  his 
good  providence,  is  soon  to  take  place;  is  the  con- 
stant wish  and  prayer  of,  gentlemen. 

Your  affectionate  brother, 

and  humble  servant, 

WM.  WHITE 
3%e  Committee  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  Pennsylvania. 


155 

Materials  for  another  letter  to  the  committee,  if 
an  opportunity  should  offer,  before  my  reaching  of 
Philadelphia. 

Monday,  Januarif  29th.  We  received  a  verbal 
message  from  the  archbishop,  desiring  us  to  call  on 
him.  Wc  attended.  His  design  was  to  ask  some 
questions,  respecting  the  forms  of  our  testimonials; 
and  the  titles  to  be  given  to  us,  in  our  letters  of  con- 
secration. We  staid  with  him  nearly  two  hours;  and 
had  much  conversation  with  him,  concerning  the  af- 
fairs of  our  church;  which  confirmed  us  in  our  high 
opinion  of  his  regard  tor  her,  and  of  his  desire  to  ad- 
vance the  interests  of  religion. 

Fnday,  February  2d.  The  mornings  of  the  two 
preceding  days  had  been  spent  in  visiting  the  different 
bishops,  who  were  in  town;  agreeably  to  the  proposal 
before  made  to  the  archbishop.  A  few  of  them — the 
archbishop  of  York,  and  the  bishops  of  Oxford,  Lan- 
daff,  Rochester  and  Bangor  had  previously  visited 
us;  and  we  had  seen  the  bishops  of  Worcester  and 
Exeter,  a  few  days  before,  at  the  archbishop's,  at 
dinner:  an  occasion,  which  I  have  not  particularly 
noticed;  because  nothing  passed  on  it,  interesting  to 
our  mission.*  Those  of  the  bishops  whom  we  found 

*  On  the  said  occasion,  we  witnessed  a  singular  ceremony, 
which  we  supposed  to  be  a  remnant  of  the  state  of  former  times. 
Soon  in  the  morning,  we  had  received  a  note  from  the  arch- 
bishop, intimating,  that  the  then  day  of  the  week  was  his  public 
day,  during  the  session  of  parliament;  and  that  he  should  be  glad 
to  see  us  on  any  weekly  day  so  mentioned — on  that  day  in  par- 
ticular, if  disengaged.     We  waited  on  him,  and  supposed  from 


156 

at  home,  seemed  to  take  the  compliment  in  good 
part;  expressed  great  good-will  to  our  church;  and 
wished,  that  our  longer  stay,  after  their  coming  to 
town,  had  permitted  their  showing  of  us  attentions* 

On  this  day,  we  waited  on  the  archbishop  in 
consequence  of  his  own  appointment  at  our  former 
interview,   in   order  to  accompany  him  to   court 

what  v>Q  saw,  that  the  several  eminent  persons  who  entered, 
came  uninvited  as  to  tliat  particular  time.  Before  dinner  the 
archbishop  rose,  bowed  to  the  'company,  and  left  the  room.  They 
followed;  all  of  them,  no  doubt,  besides  ourselves,  understanding 
the  transaction.  After  passing-  through  a  suite  of  rooms,  we  found 
ourselves  in  the  cliapel;  in  which  were  the  two  chaplains  in  their 
surplices.  One  of  them  read  the  litany;  after  which,  we  re- 
turned to  the  room  wherein  we  had  been  received.  Soon  after- 
wards, we  were  called  to  dinner.  It  is  probable,  that  such  a 
visit  on  some  Wednesday — it  was  the  weekly  day — during  the 
session  of  parliament,  is  expected  of  every  member  of  either 
house,  who  lives  in  habits  of  acquaintance  with  tlie  primate. 

The  reading  of  the  litany,  including  the  prayers  attached 
to  it  in  the  English  book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  none  other, 
seems  a  remnant  of  former  practice;  it  having  been  originally  a 
di- tinct  service.  It  is  on  this  account,  that  the  incident  has  been 
related. 

*  The  prelates  whom  we  found,  were  the  archbishop  of  York, 
the  bishop  of  Rochester,  the  very  aged  bishop  of  Carlisle,  in  whom 
w^  saw  the  wreck  of  one  of  the  first  scholars  of  the  age,  and  the 
bishops  of  Salisbury,  Bristol,  and  Ely.  The  first  mentioned  of 
these  three,  since  bishop  of  Durham,  commended  the  moderation 
manifested  in  our  service  for  the  fourth  of  Jul}'.  This  was  gra- 
tifying; as  it  had  been  pronounced  by  some  on  our  side  of  the 
Atlantic,  that  the  said  service  would  of  itself  be  sufficient,  to 
induce  a  rejection  of  the  application  of  the  American  church. 


157 

Thither  we  went  together,  in  his  coach.  On  being 
intro'liiced  to  the  king;,  I  made  this  preconceived 
address — That  "  we  were  happy  in  the  opportunity- 
of  thanking  his  majesty,  for  his  hcense  granted  to  his 
grace  the  archbishop,  to  convey  the  episcopal  succes- 
sion to  the  church  in  America.'  The  king  made 
this  answer;  which  I  set  down,  to  show  the  kindness 
of  the  archbishop* — "His  grace  has  given  me  such 
an  account  of  the  gentlemen  who  have  come  over, 
that  I  am  glad  of  the  present  opportunity  of  serving 
the  interests  of  religion."  His  majesty  then  asked  Br. 
iVovoost,  whether  the  episcopal  communion  were 
not  numerous  in  New  York:  and  was  answered 
by  the  Doctor  in  the  affirmative,  with  further  thanks 
for  the  license  granted.  The  king  then  passed  to  the 
next  in  the  circle,  and  after  a  little  while  we  with- 
drew, with  the  archbisliop^f 

We  had  contemplated  this  measure  of  waiting  on 
the  king,  as  of  peculiar  delicacy.  In  the  character 
of  citizens  of  the  United  States  of  America,  we 

*  It  may  be  presumed,  however,  that  such  civility  is  the 
usual  courtesy  of  the  place. 

t  Wiiile  we  were  waiting  in  our  places,  until  the  king  slioulil 
come  to  us  in  ins  passing  from  one  attendant  to  another,  there 
occurred  an  additional  instance  of  the  attention  of  the  arch- 
bishop to  the  delicacy  of  our  situation.  When  the  king  speaks 
to  you,  said  he,  you  will  only  bow:  adding,  with  a  smile — when 
an  English  bishop  is  presented,  he  does  something  more.  This 
alluded  to  the  ancient  fonn  of  doing  homage  for  his  barony  on 
his  knees.  We  were  aware  of  the  different  circumstances  in 
which  we  stood:  but  it  was  considerate,  to  guard  against  the  dan- 
ger of  mistake. 


158 

should  have  thought  it  inconsistent  in  us,  to  have 
made  any  application  to  the  civil  authority  of  Great 
Britain.  The  act  of  parliament,  had  laid  on  the 
^archbishop  the  obtaining  of  the  consent  of  the  king, 
under  his  sign  manual.  This  consent  had  been  ob- 
tained, before  our  going  to  court;  and  therefore,  we 
saw  no  impropriety  in  the  visit. 

Sunday,  February  Uh.  We  attended  at  the  pa- 
lace of  Lambeth,  for  consecration.  The  assistants 
of  the  archbishop,  on  the  occasion,  were  the  arch- 
bishop of  York,  who  presented;  and  the  bishop  of 
Bath  and  Wells  and  the  bishop  of  Peterborough  who 
joined  with  the  two  archbishops,  in  the  imposition  of 
hands.  It  was  particularly  agreeable  to  us,  to  see 
among  them  the  bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells;  because 
we  had  all  along  understood,  that  in  the  beginning, 
this  aged  and  venerable  prelate  had  entertained  scru- 
ples, on  the  subject  of  the  application  of  our  church: 
and  it  was  principally  owing  to  his  lordship,  that  such 
a  point  was  made  of  the  descent  into  hell,  in  the 
apostles'  creed.  We  presumed,  that  his  difficulties 
were  now  removed.  Dr.  Drake,  one  of  the  arch- 
bishop's chaplains,  preached;  and  Dr.  Randolph,  the 
other  chaplain,  read  the  prayers.  The  sermon,  was 
a  sensible  discussion  of  the  long  litigated  subject  of 
the  authority  of  the  church,  to  ordain  rites  and  cere- 
monies. The  text  was — "  Let  all  things  be  done  de- 
cently and  in  order."  1  Cor.  xiv.  40.  The  discourse, 
had  very  little  reference  to  the  peculiarity  of  the  oc- 
casion. The  truth  was,  as  the  archbi'^.hop  had  told 
us  on  Friday,  on  our  way  to  court,  that  he  had 


159 

spoken  to  a  particular  friend  to  compose  a  sermon 
for  the  occasion;  and  had  given  him  a  sketch  of  what 
he  wished  to  be  the  scope  of  it.  This  friend  had  just 
sent  him  information  of  a  domestic  calamity,  which 
would  excuse  him  from  attendance;  and  the  arch- 
bishop was  then  under  the  necessity,  of  giving  a  short 
notice  to  one  of  his  chaplains. 

The  consecration  was  performed  in  the  chapel 
of  the  palace  of  the  archbishop;  in  the  presence  of 
his  family  and  his  household,  and  very  few  others; 
among  whom  was  my  old  friend,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Duche. 
I  had  asked  the  archbishop's  leave  to  introduce  him: 
and  it  was  a  great  satisfaction  to  me,  that  he  was 
there;  the  recollection  of  the  benefit  which  I  had  re- 
ceived from  his  instructions  in  early  life,  and  a  ten- 
der sense  of  the  attentions  which  he  had  shown  me 
almost  from  my  infancy,  together  with  the  impres- 
sions left  by  the  harmony  which  had  subsisted  be- 
tween us  in  the  discharge  of  our  joint  pastoral  duty 
in  Philadelphia,  being  no  improper  accompanyments 
to  the  feelings  suited  to  the  present  very  interesting 
transaction  of  my  life.  I  hope,  that  I  felt  the  weight 
of  the  occasion.  May  God  bless  the  meditations  and 
the  recollections  by  which  I  had  endeavoured  to  pre- 
pare myself  for  it;  and  give  them  their  due  effect  on 
my  temper  and  conduct,  in  the  new  character  in 
which  I  am  to  appear! 

The  solemnity  being  over,  we  dined  with  the 
archbishop  and  the  bishops;  and  spent  with  them 
the  remainder  of  the  day.  I  took  occasion  to  men- 
tion to  his  grace  my  conviction,  that  the  American 


160 

church  would  be  sensible  of  the  kindness  now  shown; 
and  my  trust,  that  the  American  bishops,  besides  the 
usual  incentives  to  duty,  would  have  this  in  addition; 
lest  the  church  of  England  should  have  cause  to  re- 
gret her  act,  performed  on  this  day.  He  answered, 
that  he  fully  beheved  there  would  be  no  such  cause: 
that  the  prospect  was  very  agreeable  to  him ;  that  he 
bore  a  great  affection  for  our  church;  and  that  he 
should  be  always  glad  to  hear  of  her  prosperity ;  and 
also  of  the  safe  arrival  and  the  welfare  of  us  indi- 
vidually. 

After  spending  the  remainder  of  the  evening  very 
agreeably,  we  took  our  leave,  which  was  affectionate 
on  both  sides;  and  on  our  part,  with  hearts  deeply 
sensible  of  the  regard  which  had  been  shown  to  our 
church,  and  of  the  personal  civilities  which  we  had 
received.* 

Monday,  February  5th.  As  an  evidence  of  his 
grace's   dehcacy,   1   deposit   the   account   of  fees, 

*  During  dinner  this  day  at  Lambeth,  we  were  surprized  at 
a  conversation  introduced  by  the  bishop  of  Peterborough.  We 
had  been  accustomed  to  think  it  a  sort  of  adjunct  to  the  claim  of 
church manship  to  consider  the  "  Eikuv  B«o-a<>t«"  or  "  Royal  Por- 
traiture" as  a  true  expression  of  the  feelings  of  king  Charles  1. 
in  some  of  the  most  trying  circumstances  of  his  life.  The  bishop 
remarked,  and  his  brethren  assented  to  the  position,  tliat  the  con- 
trary was  now  clearly  proved, by  a  late  publication  of  some  papers 
of  lord  Clarendon.  These  papers,  it  was  said,  show  the  work  to 
have  been  written  by  bishop  Gauden.  The  simplicity  of  the  style 
of  the  work,  and  the  contrary  property  said  to  be  discernable  in 
the  writings  of  that  bishop,  are  the  circumstances  which  inclined 
Mr.  Hume  to  give  the  credit  of  the  composition  to  the  king. 


IGI 

broiijrlit  to  us  this  morning  by  his  secretary;  and  g;ive 
the  following  narrative  of  the  manner  in  which  that 
business  was  conducted. 

On  the  morning  of  our  visit  to  court,  I  mentioned 
to  the  archbishop,  agreeably  to  preconcert  with  Dr. 
Provoost,  that  there  must  necessarily  have  been  some 
charges  for  the  expenses  of  otiice,  in  carrying  the 
business  of  our  church  through  the  civil  department; 
and  requested  to  know  the  amount,  that  we  might 
discharge  it.  The  archbishop  answered,  that  if  he 
should  inform  us  on  that  point,  it  must  be  on  the 
principle,  that  in  an  affair  of  no  great  magnitude,  it 
might  seem  disrespectful  to  us,  to  withhold  the  satis- 
faction demanded.  He  added,  that  on  the  occasion 
of  the  consecration  of  an  Enghsh  bishop,  there  were 
very  considerable  expenses  to  different  persons  of 
the  archbishop's  court  and  of  his  household;  which 
expenses  he  thought  improper  on  the  present  occa- 
sion, and  should  therefore  prohibit  them.  After  the 
consecration,  he,  within  our  hearing,  informed  a  gen- 
tleman from  Doctors'  Commons,  Robert  Jenner,  Esq. 
who  had  attended  officially  in  his  civil  law  robe,  with 
a  view  to  the  local  registry,  that  as  we  intended  to 
leave  London  the  next  day,  our  papers  must  be  ready 
in  the  morning.  On  the  gentleman's  answering,  that 
he  would  wait  on  us  with  them,  the  archbishop  re- 
plied— No;  you  are  to  bring  them  to  my  secretary, 
who  will  wait  on  them:  evidently  with  the  design, 
that  the  pecuniary  part  of  the  transaction  should 
pass  under  his  own  control.  The  fees  paid  by  us 
jointly  amounted  to  L.14  3  1,  being  altogether  in 

X 


162 

the  line  of  public  offices,  and  which  the  archbishop 
must  have  paid  but  for  the  request  made  on  our 
part. 

For  the  instrument  of  consecration,  recorded  in 
the  archiepiscopal  registry,  see  Appendix,  No.  14. 

On  the  morning  of  the  day  of  our  leaving  of  the 
city,  I  received  a  note  from  the  archbishop.  Although 
it  begins  with  a  message  of  civility  to  a  respectable 
divine  in  New  Jersey,  not  long  before  in  England,  I 
take  the  prominent  object  to  have  been  the  convey- 
ing of  information,  guarding  against  an  impression 
which  might  have  been  made  by  what  had  passed 
concerning  consecration  in  the  province  of  York. 
The  note  shall  be  given,  because  of  its  bearing  on  the 
question  concerning  the  number  required  for  conse- 
cration in  the  English  church.  See  the  Appendix, 
No.  15. 

There  being  in  possession  some  documents  in  the 
civil  line,  sustaining  facts  mentioned  in  the  statements, 
the  present  opportunity  is  improved  to  the  perpetu- 
ating of  them.     They  are, 

(1)  A  letter  from  his  excellency  Richard  Henry 
Lee,  esquire,  president  of  congress,  to  his  excel- 
lency John  Adams,  esquire,  minister  plenipotentiary 
to  the  court  of  Great  Britain. 

(2)  A  letter  from  Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Lee,  in  an- 
swer. 

(S)  A  letter  from  the  archbishop  of  Canterbuiy 
to  Mr.  Adams,  after  an  interview  between  them. 

(4)  A  certificate  of  the  supreme  executive  coun- 
cil of  Pennsylvania. 


163 

(5)  A  certificate  of  his  excellency  governor  Pa- 
trick Henry  of  Virginia. 

In  reference  to  the  last  two  documents,  and  to  a 
similar  one  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Provoost,  given  by  his 
excellency  governor  Clinton  of  New  York,  but  not 
in  possession,  it  is  to  be  recollected,  that  they  were 
to  be  applied  for  in  consequence  of  an  instruction  of 
the  general  convention.  They  may  reasonably  be 
supposed  to  have  had  an  effect,  in  accomplishing 
the  views  of  the  episcopal  church.  See  the  Appen- 
dix, No.  16. 

It  was  in  the  statements,  that  Richard  Peters, 
esquire,  having  visited  England  on  private  business, 
was  requested  by  the  committee  of  the  convention  to 
wait  on  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  on  the  business 
concerning  which  the  English  prelates  had  been  ad- 
dressed. The  consequent  letter  of  Mr.  Peters  to  the 
committee  has  a  tendency  to  throw  light  on  the  sub- 
ject, and  is  therefore  given  in  the  Appendix,  No.  1 7.* 

*  There  being  nothing  more  in  the  letters  to  the  committee 
concerning  the  claim  of  the  corporation  of  the  Widows'  Fund, 
the  silence  seems  to  require  a  reason.  The  abstract  was  sent 
to  the  arclibishop,  agreeably  to  his  desire.  In  the  next  inter- 
view he  remarked,  that  he  perceived  the  evidence  of  the  promise 
of  the  society  in  England;  but  wished  to  know  to  what  period  the 
society  in  America  considered  it  as  extending.  The  author  had 
not  been  informed  on  that  point  by  the  committee,  and  made 
answer  accordingly.  The  undertaking  of  the  settling  of  this 
would  have  involved  him  in  no  less  a  difficulty,  than  that 
of  determining  at  what  period,  American  allegiance  ceased.  If 
it  were  on  the  4th  of  July  1776,  there  could  be  no  claim  beyond 
that  day,  on  a  fund  appropriated  by  charter  to  the  dominions  of 


164 

We  left  London  on  the  evening  of  the  .5th  of 
February;  rrached  Falmouth  on  the  10th;  were  de- 
tained there  by  contrary  winds,  until  Sunday  the 
17th,  when  we  embarked;  and  after  a  voyage  of  pre- 
cisely seven  weeks,  landed  at  New  York  on  the  after- 
noon of  Easter  Sunday,  April  the  7th:  sensible,  I 
trust,  of  the  goodness  of  God  in  our  personal  protec- 
tion and  safety;  and  in  his  having  thus  brought  to  a 
prosperous  issue  the  measures  adopted  for  the  ob- 
taining of  that  episcopacy,  the  want  of  which  had 
been  the  subject  of  the  complaint  of  our  church  from 
the  earliest  settlement  of  the  colonies;  and  which,  we 
hope,  will  be  now  improved  to  her  increase,  and  to 
the  glory  of  her  divine  Head. 


L  Page  24    Of  the  Convention  in  1789. 

The  business,  was  to  have  been  preceded  by  a 
sermon  from  bishop  Provoost:  but  the  bishop  being 
detained  by  indisposition.  Dr.  Smith  preached.  The 
only  bishop  present  presided,  and  the  secretary  was 
Francis  Hopkinson,  esquire. 

Previously  to  the  meeting  of  the  convention  it 
was  foreseen,  that  the  unfinished  business  of  the 
episcopacy,  and  the  relative  situation  of  the  church 
in  Connecticut,  would  be  the  principal  objects  of  at- 

the  British  crown.  On  the  other  hand,  to  have  dated  indepen- 
dence from  the  acknowledgment  of  it  by  Great  Britain,  would 
have  been  inconsistent  with  American  citizenship.  Accordingly, 
nothing  more  passed  on  the  subject.  It  should  be  noticed,  that 
to  the  former  period,  there  was  very  little  due. 


165 

tention;  and  must  be  thought  important,  not  only  hi 
themselves,  but  because  of  the  influence  which  each 
of  them  had  on  the  other.  It  may  be  proper  to  say 
something  of  these,  before  an  entry  on  the  narrative 
of  what  passed  concerning  them,  in  the  convention. 
There  is  an  implication — at  least  the  author  had 
always  so  understood  it — in  the  address  to  the  En- 
glish prelates,  tliat  the  American  episcopal  church 
was  to  obtain  from  them  the  beginning  of  the  suc- 
cession in  the  number  of  bishops  competent,  accord- 
ing to  the  English  rule  and  practice,  to  perpetuate  it. 
Doubtless,  this  sentiment  was  much  strengthened, 
by  the  consideration  of  the  antiquity  and  the  expedi- 
ency of  the  rule,  which  required  the  presence  and 
the  consent  of  three  bishops  in  every  consecration. 
Although  it  had  been  the  clear  sense  on  both  sides, 
that  the  American  church  was  entirely  independent 
on  the  church  of  England;  yet,  on  this  point  of 
procuring  from  England  the  canonical  number  of 
bishops  the  promise  seemed  to  have  been  voluntarily 
pledged;  so  that  the  English  prelates  might,  in  the 
event  of  non-compliance,  have  laid  the  charge  of"  im- 
position. It  is  true,  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury 
seems  not  to  have  been  tenacious  of  the  canonical 
number;  as  appears  from  what  he  said  of  a  conse- 
cration for  the  Isle  of  Man,  related  in  the  author's 
letter  from  Englaud.  Yet  Viis  grace  was  careful  to 
correct  his  mistake,  in  regard  to  that  measure;  as  is 
evident  from  the  note  written  by  him  to  the  author, 
on  the  day  on  which  he  left  London.  If  some  of  the 
archbishop's  brothrau,  of  the  right  reverend  bench, 
should  have  been  louud  stricter  than  himself  on 


166 

points  of  this  nature,  there  was  no  responsibility  on 
him;  and  the  blame  would  have  lain  on  those,  who 
had  dispensed  with  the  ancient  number  in  America. 
There  may  be  acknowledged  another  reason,  for  be- 
ing particular  on  this  point:  it  is  the  guarding  against 
the  mischievous  consequences  of  a  disposition  to  irre- 
gularity in  any  future  American  bishop,  who  might 
have  less  concern  for  the  peace  and  the  order  of  the 
church,  than  for  the  sustaining  of  his  consequence 
with  a  party. 

In  regard  to  the  church  in  Connecticut;  it  had 
been  all  along  an  object  with  the  author,  which  he 
never  endeavoured  to  conceal,  to  bring  its  episcopacy 
within  the  union.  But  as  the  Scotch  succession 
could  not  be  officially  recognized  by  the  English 
bishops;  he  wished  to  complete  the  succession  from 
England,  before  such  a  comprehension  should  take 
place.  He  knew,  indeed,  that  bishop  Provoost,  al- 
though he  did  not  appear  to  be  possessed  of  personal 
ill  will  to  bishop  Seabury,  was  opposed  to  having  any 
thing  to  do  with  the  Scotch  succession ;  which  he  did 
not  hesitate  to  pronounce  irregular.  Yet  he  was  very 
little  supported  in  this  sentiment;  and  least  of  all,  by 
the  clergy  of  his  own  diocess.  It  was  therefore  na- 
tural to  infer,  that  he  would  see  the  expediency  of 
what  was  the  general  wish;  or,  at  least  wave  his  ob- 
jection for  the  sake  of  peace:  as  indeed  happened.* 

*  In  the  last  preceding  convention  of  the  church  in  New 
York,  they  had  declared  their  desire,  as  well  in  favour  of  the 
succession  in  the  English  line,  as  for  a  union  of  the  church 
throughout  the  United  States,  with  an  evident  allusion  to  the 


167 

Although  these  subjects  would  of  course  have 
engaged  the  attention  of  the  convention;  yet  an  ap- 
plication which  came  from  the  church  in  Massachu- 
setts, addiessed  to  each  of  the  three  bishops,  and 
received  by  the  author  a  few  days  before  the  assem- 
bling of  the  convention,  brought  the  matter  forwards 
in  a  very  strong  point  of  view.  The  object  of  the 
address,  was  the  procuring  of  the  consecration  of 
the  Rev.  Edward  Bass  of  the  said  state,  as  the  con- 
current act  of  the  three  bishops. 

For  the  application  from  Massachusetts,  and  for 
the  testimonial  of  the  consecration  of  bishop  Seabury; 
see  the  Appendix,  No.  18. 

The  author,  had  some  time  before  written  to  Dr. 
Parker  of  Boston,  that  he  considered  the  clergy  of 
Massachusetts  as  peculiarly  situated;  in  consequence 
of  their  never  having  been  concerned,  either  in  the 
application  to  England,  or  in  that  to  Scotland:  so  that 
they  had  it  in  their  power  to  act  the  part  of  mediators, 
in  bringing  the  clergy  of  Connecticut  and  those  of  the 
other  states  together.  Dr.  Parker  has  since  repeat- 
edly declared,  and  it  is  in  a  letter  under  his  hand, 

Scotch  episcopacy.  What  is  now  referred  to,  are  the  two  follow- 
ing resolves,  passed  unanimously  on  the  5th  of  November,  1788. 

"  Resolved,  that  it  is  higlily  necessary  in  the  opinion  of  this 
convention,  that  measures  should  be  pursued  to  preserve  the 
episcopal  succession  in  the  English  line — and 

"  Resolved  also,  that  the  union  of  the  protestant  episcopal 
church  in  the  United  States  of  America  is  of  gi-eat  importance 
and  much  to  be  desired;  and  that  the  delegates  of  this  state,  in 
the  next  general  convention,  be  instructed  to  promote  that  union 
by  every  prudent  measure,  consistent  with  the  constitution  of 
the  church,  and  the  continuance  of  the  episcopal  succession  in 
the  English  line." 


168 

that  this  hint  was  the  origin,  and  that  the  promoting 
of  the  measure  mentioned  was  the  motive,  of  the  ap- 
phcation  for  the  consecration  of  Mr.  Bass.  Dr.  Par- 
ker, even  after  the  favourable  close  of  the  subse- 
quent session,  which  he  had  attended,  intimated, 
that  the  object  of  the  application  having  been  accom- 
plished, he  and  his  brethren  would  be  indifferent  as 
to  any  thing  further.  A  confirmation  of  this  appear- 
ed soon  afterwards,  in  the  resignation  of  Mr.  Bass. 

The  application  was  received  but  a  few  days  be- 
fore the  meeting  of  the  convention,  and  very  soon 
engaged  the  notice  of  that  body;  who,  from  the  be- 
ginning, manifested  a  strong  desire  of  complying  with 
it.  This  put  their  president  in  a  very  delicate  situ- 
ation; standing  alone  as  he  did  in  the  business,  and 
as  president  of  the  assembled  body.  Many  speeches 
were  made,  which  implied,  that  the  result  of  the  de- 
liberation must  involve  the  acquiescence  of  the  two 
bishops  of  the  Enghsh  line;  w^hile  it  was  thought  by 
the  only  one  of  them  present,  that  no  determination 
of  theirs  would  warrant  the  breach  of  his  faith  im- 
pliedly pledged,  as  he  apprehended,  in  consequence 
of  measures  taken  by  a  preceding  convention.  Ac- 
cordingly, he  took  occasion  to  state  to  several  of  the 
members,  in  the  intervals  of  the  meetings,  the  diffi- 
culty under  which  he  lay.  They  urged  the  neces- 
sity, which  they  thought  the  church  was  under;  and 
as  to  the  implication  involved  in  the  first  address  to 
the  English  bishops;  they  said  it  was  intended  at  the 
time,  but  prevented  by  unexpected  occurrences  in 
the  case  of  Dr.  Griffith.  On  the  opposite  side,  no 
such  necessity  was  perceived;  and  as  to  the  resigna- 


169 

tion  ofPr.  Giilfitli,  another  might  be  chosen.  He 
hat!  been  himself  cliosen,  after  the  date  of  the  letter 
to  the  English  bishops.  The  issue  of  these  confer- 
ences, were  the  resolves  on  the  journal  of  this  ses- 
sion, with  a  reference  to  the  difficulty  stated;  and  the 
directing  of  an  address  to  the  English  prelates:  which 
was  accordingly  drawn  up,  as  it  stands  on  the  jour- 
nal of  the  next  session. 

For  the  resolves  and  the  address  to  the  arch- 
bishops, see  the  Appendix,  No.  19. 

The  author,  on  being  consulted  in  regard  to  this 
expedient,  saw  an  objection  to  it  in  the  call  which  it 
made  on  the  said  prelates,  to  declare  an  opinion  on 
the  subject  of  the  Scotch  episcopacy.  Perhaps  they 
might  not  agree.  Even  if  their  opinion  should  be  fa- 
vourable; it  must  be  in  opposition  to  the  positive  pro- 
visions of  acts  of  parliament,  and  therefore  would  not 
be  officially  given.  For  his  part;  the  only  way  in  which 
he  was  to  be  affected  by  the  measure  in  contempla- 
tion, was  the  being  relieved,  at  the  present  time,  from 
the  pain  of  standing  opposed  to  the  wishes  of  the 
convention. 

The  measure  was  adopted;  and  this  seems  the 
proper  place  of  mentioning  the  result  of  it  When 
bishop  Madison  went  to  England,  in  the  following 
summer,  for  consecration;  the  archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury informed  him,  and  desired  him  to  inform  the 
author  as  president  of  the  convention,  that  he  (the 
archbishop)  had  drawn  up  an  answer;  the  sending 
of  which  would  be  rendered  unnecessary  by  his 
(bishop  Madison^s)  coming.     The  archbishop  read 

Y 


170 

the  answer  to  him;  remarking,  that  it  was  painful  to 
him  to  be  in  such  circumstances,  as  required  him  to 
speak  or  write  in  terms,  which  were  not  an  exphcit 
declaration  on  the  subject.  In  short,  bishop  Madi- 
son said,  that  the  archbishop,  in  the  answer,  left  the 
matter  as  he  found  it:  which  was  what  might  have 
been  expected,  from  the  caution  of  his  character; 
and  from  the  circumstances  of  peculiar  delicacy,  at- 
tending this  subject* 

That  so  httle  business  was  transacted  in  this  ses- 
sion of  the  convention,  may  be  seen  from  the  journal 
to  have  been  owing  to  the  adjournment;  made  for 
the  express  purpose  of  inviting  the  clergy  of  Con- 
necticut to  meet  the  convention  in  September:  an 

*  In  an  interview  with  the  archbishop,  he  expressed  himself 
to  bishop  Madison  to  the  following  effect,  as  appears  from  a  com- 
munication of  the  latter  to  the  author,  dated  December  19, 1790: 
from  which  tlie  other  particulars  are  also  taken — "  A  few  days 
before  I  left  London,  the  archbishop  requested  a  particular  in- 
terview with  me.  He  said,  he  wished  to  express  his  hopes,  and 
also  to  recommend  it  to  our  church,  that  in  such  consecrations 
as  might  take  place  in  America,  the  persons  who  had  received 
their  powers  from  the  church  of  England  should  be  alone  con- 
cerned. He  spoke  with  great  delicacy  of  Dr.  Seabury;  bui 
thought  it  most  advisable,  that  the  line  of  bishops  should  be 
handed  down,  from  those  who  had  received  their  commission 
from  tlie  same  source." 

It  was  afterwards  supposed,  that  the  sense  of  the  archbishop 
was  fully  accomplished  by  the  presence  and  the  assistance  of 
the  canonical  number  of  the  Baiglish  line:  and  the  matter  was 
so  understood  by  bishop  Madison.  Besides,  the  question  had 
changed  its  ground,  by  the  repeal  of  the  laws  against  the  Scotish 
bishops;  and  by  their  rece])tion  in  their  jjroper  character,  in 
England.  This  happened,  after  bishop  Madison's  visit  to  that 
country. 


171 

object,  which  it  was  expected  would  be  promoted  by 
the  conviction  generally  prevailing  in  the  convention, 
that  the  formerly  proposed  constitution  was  inadequate 
to  the  situation  of  this  church;  and  by  the  new  consti- 
tution entered  on  the  journal  of  this  session.  On  this 
business,  the  president  of  the  convention  met  the 
committee  but  once,  and  interested  himself  very 
little;  being  desirous,  that  whatever  additional  powers 
it  might  be  thought  necessary  to  assign  to  the  bishops, 
such  powers  should  not  lie  under  the  reproach  of 
having  been  pressed  for  by  one  of  the  number;  but 
be  the  result  of  due  dehberation,  and  the  free  choice 
of  all  orders  of  persons  within  the  church,  and  given 
with  a  view  to  her  good  government.* 

*  During  the  cession,  there  took  place  in  the  house  of  the 
author,  the  decease  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Griffith  of  Virginia.  The 
respect  entertained  for  him  by  the  convention,  appears  in  the 
arrangements  made  for  attendance  on  his  funeral  as  recorded 
on  the  journal.  He  had  been  much  indisposed  from  the  day  of 
his  arrival.  His  death,  however,  was  in  one  sense  sudden,  and 
certainly  unexpected  to  the  very  able  physician  who  attended 
liini,  and  with  whom  he  had  been  in  long  habits  of  acquaintance. 
His  disorder  was  the  inflammatory  rheumatism,  which  passe(^ 
to  his  head  during  sleep.  The  following  statement  is  thought 
due  to  the  memory  of  a  respectable  divine,  who  had  manifested 
great  zeal  for  the  organizing  of  the  church. 

It  has  been  reported,  and  had  weight  on  some  minds  in  a 
more  recent  election  to  the  episcopacy,  that  he  had  been  under 
the  necessity  of  resigning,  on  account  of  his  ha  ng  been  elected 
in  haste,  and  without  due  notice.  The  contrary  is  here  known, 
and  can  be  proved  by  documents  in  possession.  His  election, 
was  in  May  1786.  Some  private  concerns,  and  the  not  being 
supplied  with  money,  prevented  l\is  crossing  of  the  Atlantic, 
with  the  two  who  crossed  it  in  November  of  tjiat  year.   In  May 


172 

In  the  second  session,  the  clergy  who  came  from 
the  eastward,  besides  bishop  Seabury,  were  two  of 
his  presbyters,  Mr.  Hubbard  and  Mr.  Jarvis,  from 
Connecticut;  and  Dr.  Parker,  from  Massachusetts. 
All  things  now  appeared  to  tend  to  an  happy  union. 

But  a  danger  arose  from  an  unexpected  question, 
on  the  very  day  of  the  arrival  of  these  gentlemen. 
The  danger  was  on  the  score  of  politics.  Some  lay 
members  of  the  convention — two  of  them  were 
known,  and  perhaps  tliere  were  more — having  ob- 
tained information,  that  bishop  Seabury,  who  had 
been  chaplain  to  a  British  regiment  during  the  war, 
was  now  in  the  receipt  of  half-pay,  entertained  scru- 
ples in  regard  to  the  propriety  of  admitting  him  as  a 

17S7,  about  a  year  after  his  election,  and  about  a  month  after 
the  return  of  the  bishops  consecrated  in  England,  there  was 
held  a  convention  in  Virginia,  from  the  printed  journal  of  which 
the  following  is  an  extract: 

"  Resolved,  that  the  standing  committee,  without  delay,  re- 
quest of  the  right  reverend  Dr.  White,  bishop  of  the  protestant 
episcopal  church  in  the  commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania,  and  the 
right  reverend  Dr.  Provoost,  bishop  of  the  said  church  in  the 
state  of  New  York,  that  they,  or  either  of  them,  admit  to  con- 
secration the  Rev.  Dr.  Griffitli,  nominated  by  the  last  convention 
bishop  of  the  church  in  this  state." 

The  standing  committee  were  the  Rev.  Dr.  Madison,  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Bracken,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Shield,  the  Hon.  John  Blair, 
Mr.  Page  of  Rosewell,  and  Mr.  Andrews.  The  prominent  appli- 
cant to  the  American  bishops  was  Dr.  Madison,  who  was  after- 
wards bishop.  The  principle  on  which  the  bishops  declined 
compliance,  has  been  set  forth  in  its  proper  place;  being  their 
opinion,  that  they  were  pledged  to  their  first  obtaining  of  three 
bishops  from  England. 


.^-' 


173 

member  of  the  convention.  One  of  the  gentlemen 
took  the  author  aside,  at  a  gentleman^s  house  where 
several  of  the  convention  were  dining,  and  stated  to 
him  this  difficulty.  His  opinion — it  is  hoped  the 
right  one — was,  That  an  ecclesiastical  body  needed 
not  to  be  over-righteous,  or  more  so  than  civil  bodies, 
on  such  a  point — That  he  knew  of  no  law  of  the 
land,  which  the  circumstance  relative  to  a  former 
chaplaincy  contradicted — That  indeed  there  was  an 
article  in  the  confederation,  then  the  bond  of  union 
of  the  states,  providing  that  no  citizen  of  theirs 
should  receive  any  title  of  nobility  from  a  foreign 
power:  a  provision  not  extending  to  the  receipt  of 
money;  which  seemed  imphedly  allowed,  indeed,  in 
the  guard  provided  against  the  other — That  bishop 
Seabury's  half-pay  was  a  compensation  for  former 
services,  and  not  for  any  now  expected  of  him — That 
it  did  not  prevent  his  being  a  citizen,  with  all  the 
rights  attached  to  the  character,  in  Connecticut — 
And  that  should  he  or  any  person  in  the  like  circum- 
stances be  returned  a  njember  of  congress  from  that 
state,  he  must  necessarily  be  admitted  of  their  body. 
The  gentleman  to  whom  the  reasoning  was  ad- 
dressed, seemed  satisfied;  and  either  from  this  or 
from  some  other  cause,  the  objection  was  not  brought 
forward.  The  author  very  much  apprehended,  that 
the  contrary  would  happen;  not  because  of  the  pre- 
judices of  the  gentleman  who  addressed  him  on  the 
subject;  but  because  of  those  of  another,  who  had 
started  the  dithculty. 


174 

On  the  day  succeeding  that  of  the  above  conver- 
sation, the  committee  was  appointed,  as  stated  on  the 
minutes,  to  confer  with  the  eastern  gentlemen,  on  a 
plan  of  union.  They  met  in  the  evening;  and  found 
no  difficulty  in  joining  in  the  report,  as  made  the  next 
day  in  the  convention.  The  subsequent  adoption  of 
the  report,  with  the  reservation  as  to  the  negative  of 
the  bishops,  leads  to  the  remark,  that  from  the  sen- 
timents expressed  in  the  debate,  there  is  reason  to 
believe  that  the  full  negative  would  have  been  al- 
lowed; had  not  Mr.  Andrews,  from  Virginia,  very 
seriously,  and  doubtless  very  sincerely,  expressed 
his  apprehension,  that  it  was  so  far  beyond  what 
was  expected  by  the  church  in  his  state,  as  would 
cause  the  measure  to  be  there  disowned.  The  de- 
sire that  Mr.  Andrews  had  all  along  shown  to  effect 
the  union,  and  the  good  temper  with  which  he  had 
treated  every  subject  of  discussion,  gave  the  greater 
force  to  his  apprehensions:  the  consequence  of  which 
was,  the  referring  of  the  subject  of  the  full  negative 
to  some  subsequent  general  convention ;  to  be  deter- 
mined according  to  instructions  from  the  conventions 
in  the  several  states.  The  eastern  gentlemen  ac- 
quiesced, but  reluctantly,  in  this  compromise.  Had 
there  been  no  more  than  their  apprehension  of  laws 
passing  by  a  majority  of  four  fifths,  after  a  non-con- 
currence of  the  bishops;  the  extreme  improbability 
of  this  would — it  is  thought — have  been  confessed 
by  them.  But  the  truth  is — They  thought  that  the 
frame  of  ecclesiastical  government  could  hardly  be 


175 

called  episcopal,  while  such  a  matter  was  held  out  as 
speculatively  possible.* 

For  the  constitution  as  proposed  by  the  session 
of  July  and  August,  and  as  acceeded  to  in  this  session 
by  bishop  Seabury  and  the  presbyters  from  Connec- 
ticut and  Boston,  see  the  Appendix,  No.  20. 

No  sooner  had  the  convention  divided  into  two 
houses;  than  an  incident  happened  in  the  house  of 
clerical  and  lay  deputies,  which  had  an  unpropitious 
influence  on  all  that  followed:  and  as  the  result  of 
the  deliberations  of  both  houses  was,  in  many  points, 
owing  to  this  incident,  occasion  is  taken  to  relate  it, 
on  recollection;  after  having  been  an  hearer  in  the 
house  of  clerical  and  lay  deputies  at  the  time. 

In  the  appointment  of  committees,  on  the  dif- 
ferent departments  of  the  book  of  Common  Prayer; 

*  The  case  of  Mr.  Andrews  of  Virginia,  is  a  strong  proof  of 
the  laxity  in  regard  to  due  order  and  discipline,  under  which  it 
was  necessary  to  begin  tlie  organization  of  the  church.  He  was 
a  first  cousin  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Andrews,  with  whom  and  with  the 
author  he  had  been  a  student  in  the  college  of  Philadelphia.  At 
the  time  in  question,  he  was  a  professor  in  the  college  of  Wil- 
liamsburg in  Virginia.  Although  in  priests'  orders,  he  had  dis- 
continued his  ministry,  and  acted  in  some  civil  employments  of 
responsibility,  with  reputation.  He  was  a  very  sensible  and  a 
very  amiable  man,  in  his  temper  and  deportment.  He  had, 
doubtless,  in  sOme  way  reconciled  his  departure  from  the  cleri- 
cal character,  with  a  sincere  desire  of  settling  the  concerns  of 
the  church,  and  of  contributing  his  best  endeavours  to  that  ef- 
fect. Certain  it  is  that  they  were  directed,  not  to  the  pulling 
down,  but  to  the  building  up  of  the  church,  the  ministry  of 
which  he  had  forsaken.  Probably,  he  was  the  easier  reconciled 
to  this  measure,  by  the  almost  total  prostration  of  the  church  in 
Virginia,  during  the  war  of  the  revolution. 


176 

Dr.  Parker  proposed,  that  the  English  book  should 
be  the  ground  of  the  proceedings  to  be  hekl;  without 
any  reference  to  thai  set  out  and  proposed  in  1 785. 
This  was  objected  to  by  some;  who  contended,  that 
a  hturgy  ought  to  be  formed,  without  reference  to 
any  existing  book;  although  with  liberty  to  take 
from  any,  whatever  the  convention  should  think  fit. 
The  issue  of  the  debate,  was  the  wording  of  the  re- 
solves, as  they  stand  on  the  journal;  in  which  the 
diiferent  committees  are  appointed,  to  prepare  a 
morning  and  evening  prayer — to  prepare  a  litany — 
to  prepare  a  comn) union  service — and  the  same,  in 
regard  to  the  other  departments;  instead  of  its  being 
said — to  alter  the  said  services:  which  had  been  the 
language  in  1785. 

This  was  very  unreasonable;  because  the  different 
congregations  of  the  church  were  always  understood 
to  be  possessed  of  a  hturgy;  before  the  consecration 
of  her  bishops,  or  the  existence  of  her  conventions. 
It  would  have  been  thought  a  strange  doctrine  in  any 
of  the  clergy,  had  they  pretended,  that  they  were  re- 
leased from  all  obligation  to  the  use  of  the  book  of 
Common  Prayer,  by  the  revolution.  It  is  true,  that 
Dr.  Parker  had  carried  the  matter  too  far,  in  speak- 
ing of  the  proposed  book,  as  a  form  of  which  they 
could  know  nothing,  considering  that  it  had  been 
proposed  by  a  preceding  convention  from  a  majority 
of  the  states.  It  was  particularly  wondered  at  in 
Dr.  Parker;  by  those  who  knew,  that  he  had  used 
the  book  in  his  own  church  at  Boston.  But  as  the 
doctor,  during  the  preceding  part  of  the  session,  had 
been  looked  to  for  the  opening  of  the  sentiments  of 


177 

the  clerg:y  present  from  Connecticut,  who  had  said 
but  httle  all  along,  and  evidently  depended  on  him, 
to  prrss  the  points  which  they  had  most  at  heart;  it 
is  probable,  that  in  this  instance,  he  accommodated 
more  than  was  either  necessary  or  well  considered, 
to  make  matters  agreeable  to  their  minds.  The  di- 
rect course  would  have  been,  to  have  taken  the  En- 
glish liturgy,  as  that  in  which  some  alterations  were 
contemplated;  and  with  it,  the  other  as  a  proposal, 
agreeably  to  what  was  expressed  in  the  title  page. 
Certain  it  is,  that  the  extreme  proposed  tended  very 
much  to  the  opposite  extreme,  which  took  effect — 
an  evident  implication  in  all  the  proceedings  of  the 
house,  that  there  were  no  forms  of  prayer,  no  of- 
fices, and  no  rubrics,  until  they  should  be  formed  by 
the  convention  now  assembled.  Every  one  must  per- 
ceive, that  this  abridged  the  species  of  negative, 
lodged  with  the  house  of  bishops.  For  if,  in  any 
branch  of  the  liturgy,  they  should  be  disposed  to  be 
tenacious  in  any  point,  which  should  be  a  deviation 
from  the  English  book;  the  consequence  must  be,  not 
that  the  prayer,  or  whatever  else  it  were,  remained 
as  before,  but  that  no  such  matter  were  to  be  inserted. 
This,  in  some  instances,  would  have  operated  to  the 
extent  of  excluding  a  whole  office  of  the  church,  if 
the  negative  of  the  bishops  had  been  insisted  on. 
They  did  not  carry  their  right  so  far;  but  they  rea- 
soned and  expostulated  on  the  point,  with  several  of 
the  gentlemen,  to  no  purpose.  They  would  not  allow, 
that  there  was  any  book  of"  authority,  in  existence:  a 
mode  of  proceeding,  in  which  they  have  acted  diflfer- 


178 

ently  from  the  conventions  before  and  after  them; 
who  have  recog;nized  the  contrary  principle  when 
any  matter  occurred  to  which  it  was  apphcable.  If 
that  adopted  by  the  majority  of  the  house  of  clerical 
and  lay  deputies  had  been  acted  on  by  the  clergy  and 
by  the  individual  congregations,  on  the  taking  place 
of  the  civil  revolution,  it  would  have  torn  the  church 
to  pieces.  On  the  contrary,  the  idea  had  prevailed, 
that  although  the  civil  part  of  the  institution  was  de- 
stroyed, and  each  christian  minister  lay  under  the  ne- 
cessity to  discharge  the  scriptural  duty  of  praying  for 
his  civil  rulers,  according  to  his  individual  discretion; 
the  rest  of  the  service  remained  entire,  on  the  ground 
of  antecedent  obligation. 

The  forms  of  proceeding  in  the  house  of  bishops, 
consisting  of  two  only — Bishop  Provoost,  although 
absent,  being  considered  as  making  up  the  constitu- 
tional number — were  soon  settled.  They  were  draft- 
ed by  the  author,  and  he  seized  the  opportunity  of 
preventing  all  discussions  at  any  time — for  this  he 
hoped  for  as  the  effect — on  the  point  of  precedency; 
by  resting  the  matter  on  the  seniority  of  episcopal 
consecration:  which,  of  course,  made  Bishop  Seabury 
the  president  of  the  house.  This  regulation,  was 
agreeable  to  the  judgment  of  the  author;  which  is 
not  altered,  although  a  different  principle  was  adopted 
at  the  next  convention,  and  acted  on  for  a  time.  The 
only  plausible  objection  heard  to  the  other — which, 
however,  lies  equally  against  that  afterwards  adopted 
— is  the  possible  case  of  the  presidency's  devolving 
on  a  bishop,  who  may  be  disqualified  for  the  duties 
of  it.  by  mental  or  by  bodily  infirmities.    But  in  this 


179 

case,  a  vice  president,  or  a  president  pro  tempore 
might  be  appointed. 

The  principal  act  of  this  session  was  the  prepar- 
ing of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  as  now  the  es- 
tabhshed  liturgy  of  the  church.  It  will  not  be  no- 
ticed any  further,  than,  on  the  ground  of  information 
possessed,  to  account  for  the  doing  or  for  the  omit- 
ting of  any  important  matter.  The  journal  shows, 
that  some  parts  of  it  were  drawn  up  by  the  house  of 
clerical  and  lay  deputies,  and  other  parts  of  it,  by  the 
house  of  bishops.  In  the  latter,  owing  to  the  small- 
ness  of  the  number  and  a  disposition  in  both  of  them 
to  accommodate,  business  was  despatched  with  great 
celerity;  as  must  be  seen  by  any  one,  who  attends  to 
the  progress  of  the  subjects  recorded  on  the  Journal. 
To  this  day,  there  are  recollected  with  satisfaction, 
the  hours  which  were  spent  with  Bishop  Seabury  on 
the  important  subjects  which  came  before  them ;  and 
especially  the  christian  temper  which  he  manifested 
all  along. 

In  the  daily  prayer  for  morning  and  evening  ser- 
vice; the  principal  subjects  of  difference  arising  be- 
tween the  two  houses,  were  the  Athanasian  creed, 
and  the  descent  into  hell  in  the  apostles'  creed. 

On  the  former  subject,  the  author  consented  to 
the  proposal  of  Bishop  Seabury,  of  making  it  an 
amendment  to  the  draft  sent  by  the  other  house;  to 
be  inserted  with  a  rubric,  permitting  the  use  of  it. 
This  however  was  declared  to  be  on  the  principle  of 
accommodation,  to  the  many  who  were  reported  to 
desire  it,  especially  in  Connecticut;  where,  it  was  said. 


180 

the  omitting  of  it  would  hazard  the  reception  of  the 
book.  It  was  the  author's  intention,  never  to  read  the 
creed  himself;  and  he  declared  his  mind  to  that  ef- 
fect. Bishop  Seabury,  on  the  contrary,  thought  that 
without  it,  there  would  be  a  difficulty  in  keeping  out 
of  the  church  the  errors  to  which  it  stands  opposed. 
In  answer  to  this,  there  were  urged  the  instances  of 
several  churches,  as  the  Lutheran  and  others  in  this 
country  and  in  Europe;  and  above  all,  the  instance  of 
the  widely  extended  Greek  church,  confessedly  tena- 
cious of  the  doctrine  of  the  Nicene  creed;  and  yet 
not  possessed  of  the  Athanasian  in  any  liturgy,  or 
even  of  an  acknowledgment  of  it  in  any  confession 
of  faith.  Of  the  last  mentioned  instance.  Bishop  Sea- 
bury  entertained  a  doubt:  but  the  fact  is  certainly  so; 
as  is  attested  by  the  Rev.  John  Smith,  an  English 
divine  held  in  estimation;  who  wrote  "  an  account  of 
the  Greek  church,"  with  the  advantage  of  having  re- 
sided in  Constantinople.  He  says  (p.  196)  after  men- 
tion of  the  apostles'  creed  and  the  Nicene — "  as  to 
that  of  St.  Athanasius,  they  are  wholly  strangers  to  it.'' 
However,  the  creed  was  inserted  by  way  of  amend- 
ment; to  be  used  or  omitted  at  discretion.  But  the 
amendment  was  negatived,  by  the  other  house:  and 
when  the  subject  afterwards  came  up  in  conference, 
they  would  not  allow  of  the  creed  in  any  shape; 
which  was  thought  intolerant  by  the  gentlemen  from 
New  England;  who,  with  Bishop  Seabury,  gave  it  up 
with  great  reluctance. 

The  other  subject — the  descent  of  Christ  into  hell 
— was  left  in  a  situation,  which  afterwards  not  a  little 


181 

embarasscd  the  committee,  who  had  the  charge  of" 
printing  the  book.  The  amendments  of  the  bishops, 
wliether  verbal  or  other,  to  the  services  sent  to  the 
other  house,  had  all  been  numbered.  The  president 
of  that  house,  as  afterwards  appeared  on  unquestion- 
able verbal  testimony,  accidentally  omitted  the  read- 
ing of  the  article  in  its  full  force,  with  the  explana- 
tory rubric.  The  meaning  of  the  article  in  that  place, 
was  declared  to  be  the  state  of  the  dead,  generally: 
and  this  was  proposed,  instead  of  the  form  in  which 
the  other  house  had  presented  it,  in  italics  and  be- 
tween hooks,  with  a  rubric  permitting  the  use  of  the 
words — "  He  went  into  the  place  of  departed  spi- 
rits." The  paper  of  the  house,  in  return  to  that  of 
the  bishops,  said  nothing  on  this  head;  and  therefore 
their  acquiescence  was  presumed.  This  might  have 
been  the  easier  supposed;  as  there  were  some,  who, 
while  they  thought  but  little  of  the  importance  of  in- 
serting such  an  article,  were  yet  of  opinion,  that  the 
convention  stood  pledged,  on  the  present  subject,  to 
the  English  Bishops:  it  being  the  only  one  on  which 
they  had  laid  much  stress,  in  stating  the  terms  on 
which  they  were  willing  to  consecrate  for  our  church; 
and  we  having  complied  with  their  wishes,  in  that  re- 
spect. This  would  seem  very  unsuitably  followed  by 
a  repetition  of  the  offensive  measure,  or  something 
very  like  it,  in  the  first  convention  held  after  the  con- 
secration had  been  obtained.  Thus,  the  matter  passed 
without  further  notice.  But  Bishop  Seabury,  before 
he  left  the  city,  conceived  a  suspicion,  that  there  had 
been  a  misunderstanding.  For  on  the  evening  before 


182 

his  departure,  he  took  the  author  aside  from  com- 
pany, and  mentioned  his  apprehension;  which  was 
treated  as  groundless,  on  the  full  belief  that  it  was 
so.  It  was  a  point,  which  Bishop  Seabury  had  much 
at  heart;  from  an  opinion,  that  the  article  was  put 
into  the  creed,  in  opposition  to  the  Apollinarian  here- 
sy; and  that  therefore,  the  withdrawing  of  it  was  an 
indirect  encouragement  of  the  same.  The  author 
saw  no  such  inference;  but  wished  to  retain  the  arti- 
cle, on  the  ground,  that  the  doing  so  would  tend  to 
peace;  that  it  would  be  acting  consistently  towards 
the  English  church;  and  that  a  latitude  would  be  left 
by  the  proposed  rubric,  for  the  understanding  of  the 
article  as  refering  to  the  state  of  departed  spirits,  ge- 
nerally. It  is  curious  to  remark  by  the  way,  that  when 
the  book  came  out.  Bishop  Provoost  disHked  the 
form  in  which  this  part  of  it  appeared,  more  than 
either  the  article  as  it  stood  originally,  or  the  omitting 
of  it  altogether:  on  the  principle,  that  it  exacted  a  be- 
lief of  the  existence  of  departed  spirits,  between  death 
and  the  resurrection.  So  easy  is  it,  in  extending  lati- 
tude of  sentiment  on  one  side,  to  hmit  it  on  another. 
However,  when  the  committee  assembled  to  pre- 
pare the  book  for  the  press,  great  was  their  surprise 
and  that  of  the  author,  to  find  that  the  two  houses 
had  misunderstood  one  another  altogether.  The  ques- 
tion was — what  is  to  be  done.^  And  here,  the  differ- 
ent principles  on  which  the  business  had  been  con- 
ducted, had  their  respective  operation.  The  com- 
mittee contended,  that  the  amendment  made  by  the 
bishops  to  the  service  as  proposed  by  their  house, 


\ 


18 


C2 


not  appearing  to  have  been  presented;  the  service 
must  stand  as  proposed  by  them,  with  the  words  "  he 
descended  into  hell"  printed  in  italics  and  between 
hooks;  and  with  the  rubric  permissory  of  the  use  of 
the  words — "he  went  into  the  place  of  departed 
spirits."  On  the  contrary  it  w'as  thought  a  duty  to 
maintain  the  principle,  that  the  creed,  as  in  the  En- 
glish book,  must  be  considered  as  the  creed  of  the 
church,  until  altered  by  the  consent  of  both  houses; 
which  was  not  yet  done.  Accordingly,  remonstrance 
was  made  against  the  printing  of  the  article  of  the 
descent  into  hell,  in  the  manner  in  which  it  appears 
in  the  book  published  at  that  time. 

When  the  convention  afterwards  met  in  New^ 
York,  in  the  year  1792,  this  matter  came  in  review 
before  them:  and  the  result,  was  the  ordering  of  the 
creed  to  be  printed  in  all  future  editions,  with  the  ar- 
ticle not  in  italics  and  between  hooks  as  before;  but 
with  the  rubric  leaving  it  to  discretion  to  use  or  to 
omit  it;  or  to  use,  instead  of  it,  the  words  considered 
by  the  rubric  as  synonymous.  Some  such  composi- 
tion, seemed  to  be  rendered  absolutely  necessary  by 
existing  circumstances. 

The  importance  given  to  this  article  by  the  requi- 
sition of  the  English  prelates,  and  the  litigation  which 
it  has  consequently  undergone  in  our  conventions, 
induce  the  being  particular  in  regard  to  it.  There- 
fore, as  the  delivery  of  opinion  on  the  subject  will  fall 
within  the  design  of  these  sheets;  it  is  proposed  to 
recur  to  it  again,  before  the  finishing  of  remarks  on 
the  transactions  of  this  convention. 


184 

As  connected  with  the  morning  and  evening 
prayers,  the  reading  psalms  come  under  notice  in 
this  place;  and  the  following  information  is  to  be 
given  concerning  them.  ' 

The  house  of  bishops  did  not  approve  of  the  ex- 
pedient of  the  other  house,  in  relation  to  the  selec- 
tions as  they  now  stand;  to  be  used  at  the  discretion 
of  the  minister,  instead  of  the  psalms  for  the  day. 
But  Bishop  Seabury  interested  himself  in  the  subject 
the  less;  as  knowing,  that  neither  himself  nor  any  of 
his  clergy  would  make  use  of  the  alternative,  but  that 
they  would  adhere  to  the  old  practice.  For  the  au- 
thor's part,  he  disliked  the  course  taken ;  from  the 
opinion,  that  it  was  less  likely  to  be  satisfactory  than 
another  expedient  suggested  by  him,  for  the  improv- 
ing of  this  part  of  the  service;  which,  in  his  opinion, 
called  for  it  more  than  any  other.  The  expedient, 
was  to  give  to  the  officiating  minister  the  liberty  to 
select  psalms  at  his  discretion.  This  would  be  at- 
tended— ^he  thought — with  the  advantage  of  breaking 
the  practice  of  reading  the  psalms,  without  any  re- 
gard to  their  suitableness  to  the  general  circum- 
stances and  state  of  mind  of  a  mixed  congregation; 
and  yet,  not  hazard  such  capricious  omissions  of  par- 
ticular passages,  as  might  be  construed  by  some  into 
XI  disrespectful  treatment  of  holy  writ;  and  thus  pre- 
vented all  improvement  in  this  branch  of  the  service. 
Another  consequence  would  be,  that,  the  number 
and  the  length  of  the  psalms  depending  on  the  choice 
of  the  minister,  there  would  be  great  encouragement 
to  the  introduction  of  the  practice  of  singing  this  part 


185 

«f'  the  service,,  instead  of  repeating  the  verses  by  the 
minister  and  the  clerk  alternately.  As  to  the  selec- 
tions made,  he  considers  some  of"  the  omissions  of 
particular  verses  as  very  capricious;  and  the  selec- 
tions in  general  as  having  added  to  the  length  of  the 
morning  and  evening  prayer,  instead  of  shortening 
them;  an  object  confessedly  proper  to  be  kept  in 
view.  They  were  indeed  made  with  too  little  deli- 
beration; of  which  there  needs  not  to  be  given  any 
stronger  proof^  than  that  the  selections  which  stand 
as  the  7th  and  the  8th  were  proposed  by  the  house 
of  bishops,  at  his  desire,  as  an  amendment.  The  ex- 
cellency of  the  psalms  overlooked  by  gentlemen  of 
judgment  and  taste,  is  a  proof,  that  the  time  and  the 
care  bestowed  on  the  work  were  not  proportioned  to 
its  importance.  The  proposal  for  the  inserting  of 
them,  was  owing  to  the  desire  of  having  the  printed 
selections,  since  there  were  to  be  such,  to  contain  as 
many  of  the  psalms  as  were  suited  to  the  ordinary 
devotions  of  a  congregation.  The  selections  which  the 
bishops  made  contained  whole  psalms,  on  the  princi- 
ple already  stated.  The  other  house  accepted  them  as 
sent;  only  that  they  excluded  one  verse,  from  the 
84th  psalm.  But  this  subject  has  been  spoken  to 
more  particularly,  in  a  former  department  of  the  pre- 
sent work. 

There  has  been  already  expressed  the  opinion, 
that  this  part  of  the  service  requires  improvement,  as 
much  as  any.  The  author  earnestly  wishes  to  see 
the  time,  when  it  may  be  established  on  the  princi- 
ples of  rational  piety  and  good  taste.    But  there  are 

A  a 


186 

great  difficulties  in  the  way.  On  the  one  hand  there 
are  very  many,  who  remain  attached  to  the  old  prac- 
tice of  reading  all  the  psalms,  according  to  the  daily 
arrangement.  Against  this,  besides  the  objection  so 
often  made,  that  some  of  them  have  more  of  the  se- 
verity of  the  legal,  than  of  the  mercy  of  the  evange- 
lical dispensation;  there  is  the  circumstance,  that  a 
very  great  proportion  of  these  compositions  are  ex- 
pressive of  peculiar  states  of  mind;  no  one  of  which 
can  be  supposed  descriptive  of  any  body  of  people, 
convened  on  a  common  occasion  of  devotion.  Accord- 
ingly, the  parts  referred  to  seem  to  be  not  suited  to 
such  an  occasion;  however  admirably  they  may  be  so 
for  the  private  prayer  and  thanksgiving  of  particular 
persons.  As  to  the  plea  of  antiquity;  little  stress  is 
to  be  laid  on  it,  unless  it  could  be  proved,  that  the 
psalms  were  so  used  in  the  earliest  ages  of  the  church; 
the  contrary  to  which  is  here  taken  to  be  the  fact. 

But  although  these  objections  lie,  as  is  con- 
ceived, against  the  past  practice;  there  is  such  a  pro- 
pensity manifested  to  the  extreme  of  hypercriticism, 
as  is  calculated  to  bring  reproach  on  every  temperate 
reform  of  this  part  of  the  service.  The  selections  in 
the  present  Prayer  Book,  had  they  consisted  of  en- 
tire Psalms,  would  have  been  much  more  generally 
used  than  they  are  at  present.  In  saying  this,  it  is 
not  intended  to  object  to  collections  of  verses,  made 
with  a  professed  reference  to  particular  subjects;  a 
beautiful  instance  of  which — it  is  spoken  of  as  a 
mere  matter  of  taste — is  in  the  English  Prayer  Bool^ 
in  the  hymn  in  the  30th  of  January  service,  to  be 


187 

used  instead  of  the  "  Venite."  But  it  is  wished  to  dis- 
tinguisli  between  a  selection,  made  with  a  reference 
to  a  particular  subject;  and  rejection,  on  a  supposed 
unfitness  for  any  act  of  Christian  devotion. 

In  the  service  for  the  administration  of  the  com- 
munion; it  may  perhaps  be  expected,  that  the  great 
change  made,  in  restoring  to  the  consecration  prayer 
the  oblatory  words  and  the  invocation  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  left  out  in  king  Edward's  reign,  must  at  least 
have  produced  an  opposition.  But  no  such  tiling 
happened  to  any  considerable  extent;  or  at  least,  the 
author  did  no  hear  of  any  in  the  other  house,  further 
than  a  disposition  to  the  effect  in  a  few  gentlemen, 
which  was  counteracted  by  some  pertinent  remarks 
of  the  president.  In  that  of  the  bishops,  it  lay  very 
near  to  the  heart  of  bishop  Seabury.  As  for  the  other 
bishop,  without  conceiving  with  some,  that  the  ser- 
vice as  it  stood  was  essentially  defective,  he  always 
thought  there  was  a  beauty  in  those  ancient  forms, 
and  can  discover  no  superstition  in  them.  If  indeed 
they  could  have  been  reasonably  thought  to  imply, 
that  a  Christian  minister  is  a  priest,  in  the  sense 
of  an  offerer  of  sacrifice,  and  that  the  table  is  an  al- 
tar and  the  elements  a  sacrifice,  in  any  other  than 
figurative  senses,  he  would  have  zealously  opposed 
the  admission  of  such  unevangelical  sentiments — as 
he  conceives  them  to  be.  The  English  reformers 
carefully  exploded  every  thing  of  this  sort,  at  the  time 
of  their  issuing  of  the  first  book  of  Common  Prayer, 
which  contained  the  oblation  and  the  invocation. 
Although  they  were  left  out  on  a  subsequent  review: 


188 

yet  it  is  known  to  have  been  done  at  the  instance  of 
two  learned  foreigners;  and  in  order  to  avoid  what 
was  thought  the  appearance  of  encouragement  of  the 
superstition,  which  had  been  done  away.  The  re- 
storing of  those  parts  of  the  service  by  the  American 
church,  has  been  since  objected  to  by  some  few 
among  us.  To  shew  that  a  superstitious  sense  must 
have  been  intended,  they  have  laid  great  stress  on 
the  printing  of  the  words  "  which  we  now  offer  unto 
thee,"  in  a  different  character  from  the  resit  of  the 
prayers.  But  this  was  mere  accident.  The  bishops, 
being  possessed  of  the  form  used  in  the  Scotch  epis- 
copal church,  which  they  had  altered  in  some  re- 
spects: refered  to  it,  to  save  the  trouble  of  copying. 
But  the  reference  was  not  intended  to  estabhsh  any 
particular  manner  of  printing;  and  accordingly,  in 
all  the  editions  of  the  Prayer  Book  since  the  first, 
the  aforesaid  words  have  been  printed  in  the  same 
character  with  the  rest  of  the  prayer,  without  any 
deviation  from  the  original  appointment.  Bishop 
Seabury's  attachment  to  these  changes,  may  be  learn- 
ed from  the  following  incident.  On  the  morning  of 
the  Sunday  which  occurred  during  the  session  of  the 
convention,  the  author  wished  him  to  consecrate  the 
elements.  This  he  declined.  On  the  offer  being  again 
made  at  the  time  when  the  service  was  to  begin,  he 
still  declined;  and,  smihng,  added — To  confess  the 
truth,  I  hardly  consider  the  form  to  be  used,  as  strictly 
amounting  to  a  consecration.  The  form  was  of  course 
that  used  heretofore;  the  changes  not  having  taken 
effect.    These  sentiments  he  had  adopted,  in  his 


189 

visit  to  the  bishops  from  whom  he  received  his  epis- 
copacy. 

In  the  occasional  services,  there  was  so  little 
difference  of  opinion,  that  nothing  interesting  is  re- 
collected. 

Although  the  canons,  published  at  the  last  con- 
vention, came  under  review  in  this,  and  received 
alterations  and  additions;  yet,  there  was  no  me- 
morable incident  connected  with  them.  They  passed 
in  the  other  house,  almost  the  same  as  they  were 
drawn  up  and  sent  to  them  by  the  bishops. 

When  it  was  intimated,  that  there  should  again 
be  a  recurrence  to  the  article  in  the  apostles'  creed; 
this  was  with  the  view  of  delivering  sentiments  enter- 
tained on  the  subject,  as  expressed  in  the  following 
letter  to  bishop  Seabury;  written  at  the  crisis  of  the 
difficulty,  which  arose  on  the  appearance  of  the  mis- 
understanding. 

Philadelphia^  December  1789. 
Right  Reverend  and  Dear  Sir, 

I  received  your  friendly  letter  of  October  11th, 
and  laid  it  before  the  committee;  who  have  expressed 
no  formal  determination  on  the  subject;  although  it 
appears  to  me  to  be  the  sense  of  the  members,  that 
they  cannot  recede  from  the  proposal  of  the  house  of 
clerical  and  lay  deputies. 

Having  revolved  the  matter  most  seriously  in  my 
mind,  I  have  thought  that  it  might  serve  the  two  pur- 
poses of  a  friendly  communication  with  you,  and  of 
leaving  a  record  of  the  principles  on  which  I  act;  if 


190 

I  exhibit,  as  briefly  as  possible,  and  without  citing 
authorities,  a  general  view  of  my  sentiments  on  the 
point:  I  shall  arrange  them  under  these  heads — the 
history  of  the  article — its  merits  as  a  Scripture  ques- 
tion— and  the  present  state  of  it  in  this  church. 

As  to  its  history;  I  take  its  first  appearance  in  a 
particular  creed,  to  have  been  as  stated  in  the  preface 
to  the  proposed  book;  and  to  have  meant  no  more 
than  burial.     The  archbishops  tell  us,  that  it  was 
inserted  in  opposition  to  an  ancient  heresy — meaning 
the  Apollinarian.    I  cannot  find,  although  I  formerly 
took  some  pains  for  the  purpose,  any  avowed  refer- 
ence of  this  sort.     Nevertheless,  as  Christ^s  descent 
into  hell,  before  the  insertion  of  the  article,  was  un- 
questionably appealed  to  by  the  Catholics,  as  a  con- 
futation of  the  heresy;  I  should  not  be  surprised  to 
find  evidence  of  its  being  inserted  with  a  view  to 
that.     Further,  the   universal   and   uncontradicted 
prevalence  of  the  belief  of  the  descent  in  the  begin- 
ning of  the  fifth  century,  notwithstanding  the  whims 
with  which  it  became  connected,  is  of  no  small  sup- 
port to  the  opinion,  in  the  strictest  and  to  some  the 
most  offensive  sense  of  the  words.   Here,  as  it  is  con- 
nected with  the  subject,  let  me  mention  what  I  take 
to  be  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  word  ^iNiy  and  the 
Greek  word  aS'tj?.     The  former  signifies,  sometimes, 
merely  the  grave;  and  sometimes,  most  evidently  to 
my  mind,  a  place  of  unhappiness.     At^tj?  generally 
conveys  the  last  mentioned   idea.     Although  some 
passages  may  be  found,  in  which  it  is  applied  to  a 
future  state  indeterminately;  yet  I  take  it  to  be  the 


191 

opinion  of  our  best  judges,  that  its  general  and  pro- 
per meaning  is  the  dominion  of  Satan  or  a  place  of 
torment.  But  not  to  digress  too  far;  I  hold  it  to  be 
an  unquestionable  fact,  that  from  the  time  of  the 
general  prevalence  of  the  article  in  question,  as  su- 
peradded to  the  burial,  it  was  universally  understood 
in  the  strict  sense;  and  so  continued  to  the  time  of 
the  reformation;  was  then  adopted  by  our  church  in 
the  same  sense;  although  afterwards,  by  dropping 
the  reference  to  the  place  in  St.  Peter,  she  left  more 
latitude  as  to  the  precise  manner  of  explaining  the 
article. 

This  brings  me  to  my  second  particular — the 
merits  of  the  article,  as  a  Scripture  question.  Here, 
truth  and  candour  require  me  to  acknowledge,  that 
they  who  hold  the  docti'ine  in  the  strict  sense  of  the 
words,  have  much  to  say.  It  takes  off  most  of  the 
obscurity  of  the  place  in  St.  Peter,  above  alluded  to; 
which,  otherwise,  seems  incoherent  and  unintelli- 
gible. There  is  another  passage  in  the  next  chapter 
(iv.  6.)  which,  on  this  construction,  is  natural  and  of 
obvious  meaning;  but  of  which  I  never  met  with 
any  other  tolerable  interpretation.  The  passage  from 
the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  which  we  read  in  the 
ordination  service,  has  been  otherwise  ingeniously 
interpreted;  but  with  a  very  forced  and  unnatural 
interpretation  of  the  words — "  the  low^er  parts  of  the 
earth;"  and  with  the  entire  loss  of  connexion  with 
the  quotation  from  the  Old  Testament.  The  pas- 
sage Col.  ii.  15.  has  also  a  leaning  this  way.  That 
in  the  sixteenth  Psalm,  if  we  consider  it  a  mere  pro- 


192 

phecy  concerning  our  Saviour,  may  mean  his  resur- 
rection only:  for  the  word  "soul"  is  often  put  for 
person,  and  sometimes  for  the  mere  body  in  the  Old 
Testament.  As  to  the  repetition,  it  is  agreeable  to  a 
well  known  characteristic  of  eastern  poetry.  But  if 
— which  seems  the  most  reasonable — we  take  the 
prophecy  to  relate  immediately  to  David,  although 
remotely  and  completely  to  the  Messiah;  the  beauti- 
ful verses  which  follow,  show  the  psalmist's  expecta- 
tion of  spiritual  happiness,  antecedently  to  and  inde- 
pendently on  resurrection.  Accordingly,  they  give 
an  aspect  to  the  verse  in  question,  of  pertaining — in 
its  remote  sense — as  well  to  the  soul  as  to  the  body 
of  the  Redeemer. 

But  although,  for  the  above  reasons,  the  doctrine 
seems  probable  in  its  strict  sense;  yet,  considering 
that  the  passages  are  few,  that  they  are  obscure,  and 
that  they  are  introduced  incidentally — except  the  last, 
which  admits  of  another  interpretation;  and  that  the 
sense  does  not  appear,  like  the  divinity,  the  incarna- 
tion, the  humanity,  and  the  atonement  of  Christ,  as 
a  leading  truth  of  holy  Writ,  I  do  not  wish  to  have 
it  required,  as  an  essential  of  Christian  faith:  and  I 
think,  that  the  article  may  very  well  be  so  softened 
and  explained,  as  that  the  use  may  be  understood, 
whatever  be  the  form,  to  express  no  more  than  the 
passing  into  a  place  of  departed  spirits.  There 
would  seem  to  be  no  objection  to  this;  since  A^»jf 
sometimes  means  the  invisible  state,  without  any 
appropriation  to  happiness  or  misery;  agreeably  to 
the  use  of  it  among  the  Greeks,  from  whom  the 


193 

word  was  taken.  The  truth  of  the  doctrine,  with 
this  hititude,  rests  on  passages  more  expHcit  than 
those  quoted;  and  indeed,  on  the  whole  analogy  of 
our  faith.  Into  the  proof  of  this,  1  do  not  go;  not 
understanding  it  to  be  in  dispute  among  us.  How- 
ever, I  will  not  atlirm  the  necessity  of  making  it,  al- 
though true,  an  article  in  so  short  a  composition  as 
the  apostles'  creed.  As  to  the  absurd  tenet  of  the 
Apollinarians,  it  might  be  guarded  against  in  ano- 
ther way,  more  conveniently  and  more  explicitly. 
Therefore  the  matter  of  retaining  or  omitting  rests, 
in  my  mind,  chiefly  on  the  footing  of  usefulness  and 
expediency.  If  retained,  as  explained  in  our  amend- 
ment, it  will  not  contradict  any  principle,  to  which 
regard  should  be  had  among  us.  If  omitted,  it  will 
be  liable  to  many  inconveniences,  to  be  pointed  out 
under  the  third  branch  of  the  subject,  to  which  I 
now  pass — the  present  state  of  the  article  in  our 
church. 

It  appears  most  unquestionable  to  my  under- 
standing, that  if  a  person  of  good  sense,  but  a  stranger 
to  what  has  passed  on  the  subject,  and  entirely  indif- 
ferent to  the  question,  were  to  make  out  a  copy  for 
the  printer  from  the  papers  prepared  by  the  conven- 
tion, the  copy  would  be  agreeable  to  our  amendment. 
Yet  this  would  be  a  very  ineligible  footing,  on  which 
to  rest  the  matter;  because  the  members  of  the  house 
of  clerical  and  lay  deputies  might  truly  declare,  that 
they  never  meant  it.  And  it  would  appear  in  full 
proof,  that  the  amendment  was  never  read  to  them. 

Bb 


194 

If  the  above  should  make  the  whole  transaction 
null;  the  obvious  inference  is,  that  we  revert  to  the 
English  book,  in  this  point:  for  as  to  the  position, 
that  we  have  no  creed,  nor  any  other  service,  until 
framed  by  a  convention;  it  appears  to  me  of  such 
dangerous  tendency,  and  is  so  inconsistent  with  the 
proceedings  of  former  general  conventions,  and  those 
of  all  the  state  conventions  in  my  possession ;  that  its 
being  the  opinion  of  a  majority  of  the  members  of  the 
late  general  convention,  will  never  justify  me  to  my 
own  conscience,  in  making  it  a  ground  of  conduct. 
On  the  contrary,  I  hold  it  to  be  my  duty  to  God  and 
the  church,  to  presume  the  opposite;  as  the  present 
known  profession  of  our  communion. 

What  then  is  the  sense  of  the  church  of  England 
in  this  matter.''  The  archbishops,  in  their  communi- 
cation, allude  to  such  a  declared  sense.  But  with 
the  utmost  deference  to  so  high  an  authority,  I  never 
could  find  it  in  any  institutions  of  that  church.  As 
to  her  writers,  they  differ  widely  from  one  another. 
Dr.  Fiddes  is  a  strong  advocate  for  the  strict  sense 
of  the  words.  Dr.  Barrow  prefers  the  making  of 
them  synonymous  with  burial.  Bishops  Pearson  and 
Burnet,  are  for  the  sense  comprehended  by  the  pro- 
posed marginal  note  and  rubric.  Yet  we  may  gather 
from  them  all,  that  the  strict  sense  was  the  original 
meaning.  And  my  only  objection  to  leaving  the  mat- 
ter as  we  found  it,  is  the  rigor  of  requiring  the  be- 
lief of  it  in  that  high  sense.  For  although  I  should 
fear  to  insert  any  thing  in  opposition  to  it — "  lest 
haply  we  be  found  to  fight  against  God^' — yet  on  the 


195 

otlier  hand,  it  is  involved  in  so  much  difficulty  as  to 
make  me  equally  tear  the  being,  by  the  requisition 
of  it,  "  wise  above  what  is  written."  The  latter 
may  perhaps  be  objected  to  the  English  creed,  with- 
out some  explanatory  extension:  for  notwithstanding 
all  that  was  said  concerning  "  hell"  being  syno- 
nymous with  "  a  place  of  departed  spirits,"  without 
especial  application  to  a  state  of  unhappiness,  I  take 
the  fact  to  be  generally  otherwise. 

But  now,  if  this  reasoning  should  be  wrong,  and 
the  matter  should  be  supposed  to  rest,  agreeably  to 
the  sense  of  the  committee,  who  contend,  that  by  re- 
jecting our  rubric  they  retain  their  own,  and  that  the 
body  of  the  creed  should  be  altered  accordingly;  I 
proceed  to  state  the  bad  consequences  of  their  plan. 

1st.  As  the  article  is  acceptable  to  many,  on  the 
principle  of  its  combating  of  a  glaring  error,  I  would 
not  even  seem  to  countenance  that  error;  when  the 
difficulty  complained  of  might  have  been  removed 
without  any  absurdity,  or  the  contradicting  of  the 
principles  of  any  members  of  our  church. 

2dly.  The  referring  of  the  alternative  to  the 
choice  of  the  respective  churches,  whether  it  be 
meant  to  those  in  the  different  states  collectively,  or 
to  the  congregations  separately,  threaten/s  in  either 
case  much  dangerous  litigation. 

3dly.  Without  entering  into  the  question,  how 
far  a  convention  are  bound  by  the  proceedings  of 
their  predecessors,  so  far  as  the  same  persons  are 
concerned  at  this  time,  in  reversing  what  they  did  in 
October  1786,  and  considering  the  circumstances  of 


196 

the  case;  it  does  not  square  with  my  ideas  of  good 
faith:  although  in  saying  this,  I  only  look  at  the  effect 
of  it  on  my  own  situation. 

4thly.  At  a  time  when  our  church  is  not  in  se- 
cure possession  of  the  episcopacy,  it  is  highly  impru- 
dent to  take  any  measures,  which  may  impede  us  in 
that  business. 

5thly.  On  the  plan  proposed,  it  will  require  a 
stronger  exertion  of  ecclesiastical  authority  than 
hitherto,  to  prevent  different  ways  in  the  same 
church,  in  the  case  of  a  stranger's  officiating:  whose 
departure  from  the  usage  of  that  particular  church, 
would  tend  to  distract  the  minds  of  the  people. 

6thly.  There  are  proofs  on  this  very  point,  that 
gentlemen  may  resolve  on  such  matters  in  conven- 
tion; and  yet,  in  their  respective  cures,  may  not  have 
constancy  to  carry  them  into  effect:  which  tends  to 
throw  on  others  the  odious  appearance,  of  being  sin- 
gularly forward  in  innovation. 

7thly.  We  shall  have  the  less  to  justify  ourselves 
in  the  event  of  the  inconveniences  apprehended,  be- 
cause of  the  general  acceptation  of  this  article  of  the 
creed:  it  being  retained  by  the  Roman  Catholics,  by 
the  Lutheran  churches,  and  by  the  Presbyterians  of 
all  descriptions,  besides  others. 

And  now,  after  all  these  difficulties,  the  question 
is — What  is  to  be  done.'^  I  know  not.  But  if  the 
committee  are  so  confident  of  the  goodness  of  their 
construction,  as  to  make  it  the  foundation  of  their 
printing  of  the  book;  at  the  same  time  admitting — 
as  they  have  done — a  declaration  from  me  annexed 


197 

to  the  record,  that  my  signing  of  the  morning  prayer 
is  not  to  be  construed  as  involving  an  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  consent  of  the  house  of  bishops  to  that 
matter;  1  am  very  wilhng  to  promise,  on  the  condi- 
tion of  being  thus  not  answerable  for  the  conse- 
quences, to  throw  no  impediment  in  the  way  of  the 
book  on  tliat  account;  but  on  the  contrary,  to  give  it 
all  the  support  in  my  power;  making  use,  however, 
in  common  with  others,  of  the  latitude  allowed  in 
this  instance  by  the  book  itself 

I  must  however,  my  dear  sir,  with  the  freedom 
which  I  hope  will  subsist  between  us,  confess  to  you, 
that  I  feel  most  sensibly  a  difficulty  to  which  in  this 
and  in  a  very  few  other  particulars,  I  am  subjected 
by  the  late  fixture  of  the  constitution.  So  far  as  the 
making  of  the  bishops  a  separate  house  tended  to 
conciliate  our  eastern  brethren,  1  rejoice  in  it,  as  lor 
the  good  of  the  church.  And  so  far  as  it  lately  gave 
me  much  of  your  company  and  conversation,  I  re- 
member it  with  peculiar  personal  satisfaction.  I 
think  further,  that  on  this  plan,  matters  are  more 
hkely  to  be  matured,  than  on  that  of  a  single  house. 
But  it  is  a  dictate  of  natural  justice,  that  there  should 
be  no  appaient,  where  there  is  no  real  responsibility'. 
If  any  one  should  compare  the  constitution,  with  the 
known  fact  and  general  persuasion  of  our  having 
before  a  liturgy;  he  will  presume  of  a  majority  of  the 
house  of  bishops,  that  is,  in  the  present  case,  of  all 
of  the  order  present,  that  they  were  in  their  judg- 
ments favouiable  to  all  the  alterations  made.  This, 
you  know,  was  not  the  fact.  And  altliough,  in  regard 


198 

to  the  points  given  up,  I  shall  think  nothing  of  them; 
ifj  in  the  event,  tlie  great  good  should  be  accom- 
plished, of  having  one  service  for  the  church  in  these 
states;  yet  I  vi^ish,  that  the  thing  had  been  otherwise 
contrived,  as  to  that  same  responsibility.  And  if  the 
operation  be  an  hard  one,  in  relation  to  matters 
to  which  we  gave  our  sanction,  although  we  wish- 
ed them  otherwise;  it  will  be  more  so,  on  a  point 
to  which  we  have  given  no  sanction.  Still,  I  know 
of  no  expedient  besides  that  suggested. 

You  will  rejoice  to  find,  that  I  have  nothing  to 
add  on  a  subject,  on  which  I  must  have  been  at  this 
time  very  tedious  to  you:  and  therefore,  I  conclude 
myself,  your  affectionate  brother, 

WM.  WHITE. 
Right  Rev.  Bishop  Seabury. 


K.  Page  25.    Of  the  Convention  in  1792. 

The  bishops  present  at  this  convention,  were 
bishops  Seabury,  White,  Provoost,  Madison,  and, 
after  consecration,  Claggett. 

Bishop  Provoost  presided  in  the  house  of  bishops, 
and  Dr.  William  Smith  of  Pennsylvania  in  the  house 
of  clerical  and  lay  deputies.  The  secretaries  of  the 
two  houses  were,  of  the  former  first  the  Rev.  Samuel 
Keene,  and  afterwards  the  Rev.  Leonard  Cutting; 
and  of  the  latter,  the  Rev.  John  Bisset. 

The  occasion  was  opened,  by  a  sermon  from 
bishop  Seabury;  agreeably  to  the  desire  of  the  last 
convention. 


199 

An  unpropitious  circumstance  attended  the  open- 
ing of  this  convention;  but  was  happily  removed,  be- 
fore proceeding  to  business.  Bishop  Seabury  and 
bishop  Provoost  had  never,  when  the  former  liad 
been  in  New  York  at  different  times  since  his  con- 
secration, exchanged  visits.  Although  the  author 
knows  of  no  personal  offence,  that  had  ever  passed 
from  either  of  tliem  to  the  other,  and  indeed  was  as- 
sured of  the  contrary  by  them  both;  yet  the  notoriety, 
that  bishop  Provoost  had  denied  the  validity  of  bishop 
Seabury's  consecration,  accounted  at  least  for  the 
omission  of  the  attentions  of  a  visit,  on  either  side. 
This  very  thing  had  not  been  without  its  conse- 
quences, on  the  proceeding  of  the  conventions: 
which  is  here  stated,  as  a  caution  against  such  par- 
tial considerations,  acted  on  without  due  delibera- 
tion, and  producing  inconsistencies  of  conduct.  For 
in  the  convention  of  June  1786,  on  the  question  of 
denying  the  validity  of  bishop  Seabury's  ordinations, 
the  vote  of  New  Y'ork  is  "Aye,"  although  it  was 
well  known,  that  two  of  the  three  clergymen  fi'om 
that  state  had  paid  attentions  to  Dr.  Seabury,  as  a 
bishop;  and  that  he  stood  high  in  their  iSsteem.  But 
they  acted  under  instructions  from  the  church  in  their 
state;  when  the  convention  of  it  was  of  a  complexion, 
corresponding  with  that  vote.  Afterwards,  in  the 
general  convention  of  1 789,  the  convention  of  New 
York  having  been,  at  its  preceding  meeting,  com- 
posed principally  of  gentlemen  of  an  opposite  senti- 
ment on  this  subject,  the  deputies  from  that  state 
were  among  the  foremost  in  producing  the  resolu- 


200 

tion  then  come  into,  of  recognizing  bishop  Seabury's 
episcopal  character. 

But  to  return  to  the  narrative.  The  prejudices 
in  the  minds  of  the  two  bishops  were  such,  as 
threatened  a  distance  between  them:  which  would 
give  an  unfavourable  appearance  to  themselves,  and 
to  the  whole  body;  and  might  perhaps  have  an  evil 
influence  on  their  deliberations.  But  it  happened 
otherwise.  On  a  proposal  being  made  to  them  by 
common  friends,  and  through  the  medium  of  the 
present  author,  on  the  suggestion  of  Dr.  Smith,  they 
consented  without  the  least  hesitation,  bishop  Sea- 
bury  to  pay,  and  bishop  Provoost  to  receive  the  visit, 
which  etiquette  enjoined  on  the  former  to  the  latter; 
and  was  as  readily  accepted  by  the  one,  as  it  had 
been  proffered  by  the  other.  The  author  was  pre- 
sent, when  it  took  place.  Bishop  Provoost  asked  his 
visitant  to  dine  with  him  on  the  same  day,  in  com- 
pany of  the  author  and  others.  The  invitation  was 
accepted;  and  from  that  time,  nothing  was  perceived 
in  either  of  them,  which  seemed  to  show,  that  the  for- 
mer distance  was  the  result  of  any  thing  else,  than 
difference  in  opinion. 

There  was  another  matter,  which  threatened 
the  excitement  of  personal  resentments;  but  it  was 
got  over,  as  happily  as  the  preceding. 

When  the  bishops  met  in  the  vestry  room  of 
Trinity  church,  on  Wednesday  the  12th  of  Septem- 
ber; it  appeared,  that  bishops  Provoost  and  Madison 
were  dissatisfied  with  the  rule  in  regard  to  the  presi- 
dency, as  established  in  1789.     As  the  house  were 


201 

divided  on  the  question  of  repealing  the  rule,  it 
would  have  stood.  But  this  might  have  been  con- 
strued into  an  ungenerous  advantage  of  the  prior 
meeting;  in  which,  those  now  in  the  negative  had 
voices,  and  the  others  had  none.  The  day  passed  over 
witliout  any  determination;  which  was  not  produc- 
tive of  inconvenience;  the  morning  being  principally 
occupied  by  the  religious  service,  and  the  convention 
not  meeting  in  the  afternoon.  The  next  morning, 
the  author  received  a  message  from  bishop  Seabury; 
requesting  a  meeting  in  private,  before  the  hour  of 
the  convention.  It  took  place  at  Dr.  Moore's,  where 
he  lodged.  He  opened  his  mind  to  this  effect — That 
from  the  course  taken  by  the  two  other  bishops  on 
the  preceding  day,  he  was  afraid  they  had  in  con- 
templation the  debarring  of  him  from  any  hand  in 
the  consecration,  expected  to  take  place  during  this 
convention — That  he  could  not  submit  to  this,  with- 
out an  implied  renunciation  of  his  consecration,  and 
contempt  cast  on  the  source  from  which  he  had  re- 
ceived it — And  that  the  apprehended  measure,  if 
proposed  and  persevered  in,  must  be  followed  by  an 
entire  breach  with  him,  and,  as  he  supposed,  with 
the  church  under  his  superintendance. 

The  author  expressed  his  persuasion,  that  no 
such  design  was  entertained,  either  by  bishop  Pro- 
voost  or  by  bishop  Madison;  and  his  determination, 
that  if  it  were,  it  should  not  have  his  concurrence. 
He  believed  they  wished,  as  he  also  did,  to  have 
three  bishops  present  under  the  English  consecra- 
tion, whenever  such  an  occasion,  as  that  now  ex- 

c  c 


202 

pected,  should  occur.  The  being  united  in  the  act 
with  a  bishop  who  should  consecrate  through  ano- 
ther line,  would  not  weaken  the  English  chain.  In 
regard  to  the  question  of  presidency,  on  which  bishop 
Seabury  had  intimated  that  he  should  not  be  tena- 
cious; the  author  told  him,  that  his  opinion  being  the 
same  as  in  1789,  he  could  not  consistently  vote  for 
the  reversing  of  the  rule;  which,  if  it  were  done,  he 
thought  had  best  be  by  the  absence  that  morning  of 
one  of  the  two  now  conversing;  and  that  should 
bishop  Seabury  think  it  proper  in  this  way  to  wave 
his  right  under  the  rule,  the  author  pledged  himself, 
that  in  no  event  would  he  have  an  hand  in  the  ensu- 
ing consecration,  if  it  were  to  be  accompanied  by  the 
rejection  of  bishop  Seabury 's  assistance  in  it;  al- 
though there  was  still  entertained  the  persuasion, 
that  no  such  measure  would  be  thought  of,  as  indeed 
proved  to  be  the  fact.  Hands  were  given,  in  testi- 
mony of  mutual  consent  in  this  design.  He  absent- 
ed himself  tliat  morning,  and  the  rule  was  altered, 
in  the  manner  related  on  the  journal:  that  is,  for  the 
presidency  to  go  in  rotation,  beginning  from  the 
north;  \\hich  made  bishop  Provoost  the  president 
on  the  present  occasion. 

At  the  opening  of  this  convention,  it  was  no 
small  satisfaction  to  many,  to  find  lay-deputies  from 
Connecticut.  The  aversion  entertained  by  the  clergy 
in  that  state,  to  this  part  of  the  institution  in  the  more 
southern,  had  been  one  of  the  principal  impediments 
to  an  union:  and  when  it  was  at  last  effected,  it  was 
with  a  latitude  to  them  in  this  article.    Some  of  the 


7» 


203 

laity,  at  the  time,  were  afraid  that  this  would  be  the 
beginning  of  rejecting  them  entirely.  But  the  event 
ought  to  be  noticed;  as  a  proof,  that  forbearance  and 
mutual  toleration  are  at  least  sometimes  a  shorter 
way  to  unity,  than  severity  and  stiffness. 

On  the  subject  of  the  Prayer  Book,  there  was 
nothing  which  could  properly  come  before  the  con- 
vention without  another  review;  and  this  was  not  in- 
tended, except  the  seeing  that  the  book  had  been 
properly  executed.  In  the  correcting  of  any  thing 
amiss  touching  this  matter,  there  could  be  no  ground 
of  difference,  except  in  the  article  of  the  descent  into 
hell,  which  had  been  settled  as  already  related;  and 
the  subject  of  the  exclusive  copy-right  of  the  book; 
which  had  been  granted  by  the  committee,  in  order 
to  render  the  book  the  cheaper,  and  to  raise  a  small 
sum  for  a  charitable  use;  which  two  objects  they 
thought  consistent  with  one  another;  and  further,  to 
secure  the  faithful  printing  of  the  book.  The  mea- 
sure, however,  was  generally  censured  and  was 
reversed. 

The  alterations  of  the  ordinal,  were  prepared  by 
the  bishops.  There  was  no  material  difference  of 
opinion;  except  in  regard  to  the  words  used  by  the 
bishop  at  the  ordination  of  priests — "  Receive  ye 
the  Holy  Ghost" — and  '•  Whose  sins  thou  dost  for- 
give they  are  forgiven,  and  whose  sins  thou  dost  re- 
tain, they  are  retained."  Bishop  Seabury,  who  alone 
was  tenacious  of  this  form,  consented  at  last,  with 
great  reluctance,  to  allow  the  alternative  of  another 
as  it  now  stands.    The  objections  to  the  use  made  of 


204 

the  aforesaid  expressions — the  author  here  speaks 
his  own  sense  only,  not  answering  for  that  of  any 
other  bishop — were  as  follow: 

As  to  the  first — "  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost/^it 
is  supposed  to  express  the  conveyance  of  the  minis- 
terial character;  which  St.  Paul  recognizes  as  the 
gift  of  the  spirit.  1  Tim.  iv.  14,  and  2  Tim.  i.  6.  and 
Eph.  iv.  8.  11 .  And  as  to  the  expressions — "  whose 
sins  &c,''  he  supposes  it  to  relate,  according  to  the 
intention  of  the  service,  principally,  under  due  regu- 
lation, to  the  power  of  passing  ecclesiastical  censures 
and  of  releasing  from  them;  and  partly,  to  the  declar- 
ing of  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  repented  of  and  for- 
saken: such  forgiveness  not  to  apply,  independently 
on  the  sincerity  of  the  receiver.  But  although  each 
of  the  expressions  will  thus  admit  of  a  good  interpre- 
tation ,  which  should  be  given  by  the  clergy  as  occa- 
sion may  call  for  it;  yet  the  words  are  not  necessarily 
to  be  used  in  preference  to  every  other  form,  in  the 
very  act  of  conveying  the  ministerial  commission.  If 
they  are  not  necessary,  they  cannot  be  so  proper  in 
the  place  in  which  they  stand,  as  some  other  words 
of  more  obvious  signification.  There  seems  tlie  less 
reason  to  stickle  tor  the  last  of  the  two  clauses,  as  it 
was  not  of  very  early  use  in  the  church. 

It  may  be  proper  to  record — what  would  not 
otherwise  appear  from  the  journal — that  the  greater 
part  of  the  time  of  the  house  of  clerical  and  lay  de- 
puties was  taken  up  with  debates  on  the  proposed 
absolute  negative  of  the  bishops;  but  without  any  in- 
terference on  their  part.  The  debates  ended  in  what 


205 

appears  on  the  journal  of  the  house  of  clerical  and 
lay  deputies,  Saturday  September  15 — its  being  no- 
tified to  tlie  churches,  that  it  was  proposed  to  deter- 
mine on  tiie  subject  at  the  next  convention. 

On  the  subject  of  the  articles,  the  author  will  be- 
gin with  the  opinions  of  the  bishops  in  regard  to  the 
general  question,  so  far  as  they  are  within  his  know- 
ledge: and  his  beginning  with  his  own  opinion,  is 
merely  because  of  the  complexion  which  it  may  per- 
haps be  supposed  to  give  to  the  facts  to  be  narrated. 

He  professed  himself  an  advocate  for  articles;  the 
abolishing  of  which  would,  he  thought,  only  leave 
with  every  pastor  of  a  congregation  the  right  of  judg- 
ing of  orthodox)^,  according  to  his  discretion  or  his 
prejudices;  while  the  articles  determine  that  matter 
by  a  rule,  issuing  from  the  pubhc  authority  of  the 
church. 

When  the  question  has  been  put — whether  the 
39  articles  are  the  best  rule  that  can  be  devised;  he 
has  answered,  that  he  thought  them  better  than  any 
other,  likely  to  be  obtained  under  present  circum- 
stances. Conventional  business  is  too  much  hurried, 
and  the  members  of  the  conventions  are  not  suffi- 
ciently retired  from  other  avocations,  for  the  enter- 
ing on  determinations  of  this  magnitude.  Even  if  the 
greater  number  of  the  body  should  be  conceded  to 
be  sufficiently  learned  for  the  work;  ecclesiastical 
legislation  has  not  been  of  sufficiently  long  standing 
in  this  church,  to  have  established  the  characters  of 
those  who  exercise  it,  as  to  this  point,  in  the  estima- 
tion of  the  world.     Until  such  a  character  shall  be 


206 

established;  a  few  obstinate  or  factious  men  will 
overset,  in  their  respective  congregations,  what  shall 
have  been  enacted  in  convention.  Besides,  many- 
persons  among  the  laity,  and  some  even  among  the 
clergy,  had  declared  their  determination  to  abide  by 
the  articles  at  all  events:  which  made  it  much  to  be 
feared  that  a  schism  would  take  place,  whenever  any 
material  change  should  be  determined  on.  In  this 
case,  they  who  should  adhere  to  the  articles,  would 
claim  their  relation  to  the  church  of  England;  while 
it  would  be  questionable,  whether  the  others  would 
have  any  permanent  tie  among  themselves. 

Therefore,  the  author  wished  for  an  adherence  to 
the  39  articles;  not  excepting  the  general  principles 
maintained  in  the  political  parts  of  them;  but  with  an 
exception,  in  the  ratification,  of  the  local  application 
of  the  said  parts,  according  to  the  letter  of  them. 
But  he  did  not  wish  to  have  the  articles  signed,  as  in 
England,  according  to  the  tenor  of  the  36th  canon  of 
that  church.  He  preferred  the  resting  of  the  obliga- 
tion of  them  on  the  promise  made  at  ordination,  as 
required  by  the  7th  article  of  the  constitution,  con- 
sidered as  sufficient  by  the  English  bishops:  which 
would  render  them  articles  of  peace,  as  they  are 
sometimes  said  to  be  in  the  church  of  England;  but 
not  with  such  evident  propriety,  as  they  would  then 
be  in  the  American  church.  As  the  author  approves 
of  the  geneial  tenor  of  the  39  articles;  he  trusted, 
that  however  he  might  have  supposed,  in  his  private 
judgment,  the  possibility  of  omitting  some  of  them 
and  of  altering  others  to  advantage;  yet  not  perceiv- 


207 

ing  a  probability,  either  that  such  a  change,  if'made, 
would  have  been  for  the  better;  or,  that  if  so,  it  \vould 
have  found  such  general  acceptance  as  to  prove  a 
sufficient  bond  of  union;  he  thought  he  acted  consis- 
tently, in  endeavouring  to  obtain  them  on  the  terms 
stated. 

Bisliop  Seabury,  was  free  to  declare  his  dissatis- 
faction with  some  of  the  articles;  and  during  the 
former  convention  in  Philadelphia,  had  expressed  a 
doubt  in  conversation  with  the  author  and  several 
others,  whether  it  were  expedient  to  have  any:  it  be- 
ing presumed  by  him,  that  all  necessary  doctrine 
should  be  comprehended  in  the  liturgy.  But  on  this 
occasion,  he  saw  so  clearly  the  inconveniences  likely 
to  result  from  there  being  no  authoritative  rule  in  the 
form  of  public  confession,  that  he  wished  to  adopt  one; 
and  as  the  author  understood  him,  the  code  of  the  39 
articles. 

Bishop  Provoost  did  not  deliver  his  sentiments  on 
the  subject;  which  was  the  less  exacted  of  him,  be- 
cause of  the  circumstance  of  his  being  in  the  presi- 
dential chair.  But  the  author  has  always  supposed, 
that  they  do  not  materially  differ  from  those  of  Bishop 
Madison,  who  gave  his  opinion  against  articles  alto- 
gether. He  had  long  before  declared  himself  on  this 
point,  in  a  sermon  preached  before  the  convention  of 
Virginia,  some  years  previously  to  his  election  to  the 
episcopacy.  This  sermon  was  printed;  and  opposes 
articles,  on  the  principles  of  the  confessional  and  the 
nke  books. 


208 

Bishop  Claggett  no  further  gave  his  opinion,  than 
as  it  was  imphed  in  his  vote  on  the  question,  in  the 
conference  between  the  two  houses.  What  Httle  had 
passed  among  the  bishops,  was  before  the  consecra- 
tion; the  recency  of  which  was  probably  the  cause  of 
his  giving  of  his  mere  vote  in  the  conference  of  the 
houses.  His  sense  was  decidedly  in  favour  of  arti- 
cles; as  appeared  also  in  his  usual  conversation  on 
the  subject. 

There  was  no  formal  discussion  of  the  subject, 
in  the  house  of  bishops:  but  they  negatived  the  ques- 
tion of  reference  to  a  future  convention,  when  it  be- 
came the  subject  of  conference  between  the  two 
houses.  The  negative  happened  by  Bishop  Seabury's, 
Bishop  Claggett's  and  the  author's  votes,  against 
Bishop  Madison's  in  the  affirmative:  so  that  the  pre- 
sident was  not  called  on  to  vote.  The  author  takes 
notice,  that  this  transaction  is  not  recorded  on  the 
journal  of  the  house  of  clerical  and  lay  deputies.  But 
it  happened  as  recorded  on  that  of  the  bishops;  who, 
by  their  negative  vote,  only  showed  their  willingness 
to  undertake  the  subject:  for  the  postponement  took 
place  of  course;  as  the  other  house,  immediately  af- 
ter the  conference,  determined  to  dismiss  it  for  the 
present. 

It  may  be  proper  to  mention  a  proposition  made 
by  the  bishops,  but  not  entered  on  the  journals. 

Bishop  Madison  had  communicated  to  the  au- 
thor, on  their  journey  from  Philadelphia  to  New 
York,  a  design  which  he  had  much  at  heart — that  of 
effecting  a  re-union  with  the  methodists:  and  he  was 


209 

bo  sanguine  as  to  believe,  that  bv  an  accominodat"ion 
to  them  in  a  few  instances,  they  would  be  induced  to 
give  up  their  peculiar  discipline,  and  conform  to  the 
leading  parts  of  the  doctrine,  the  worship  and  the 
discipline  of  the  episcopal  church.  It  is  to  be  noted, 
that  he  had  no  idea  of  comprehending  them,  on  the 
condition  of  their  continuing  embodied,  as  at  present. 
On  this  there  was  communicated  to  him  an  inter- 
course held  with  Dr.  Coke,  one  of  the  superintend- 
ants*  of  that  society;  which  might  have  showed  to 
Bishop  Madison,  how  hopeless  all  endeavours  for 
such  a  junction  must  prove.  Nevertheless,  he  per- 
sisted in  his  well  meant  design.  The  result  of  this, 
was  his  introducing  into  the  house  of  bishops  of  a 
proposition;  which  his  brethren  after  some  modifica- 
tions, approving  of  the  motive,  but  expecting  Uttle  as 
the  result  of  it,  consented  to  send  to  the  other  house. 
The  proposition  is  as  follows. 

"  The  protestant  episcopal  church  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  ever  bearing  in  mind  the  sacred 
obligation  which  attends  all  the  followers  of  Christ, 
to  avoid  divisions  among  themselves;  and  anxious  to 
promote  that  union  for  which  our  Lord  and  Saviour 
so  earnestly  prayed;  do  hereby  declare  to  the  chris- 
tian world,  that,  uninfluenced  by  any  other  considera- 
tions than  those  of  duty  as  christians,  and  an  earnest 
desire  for  the  prosperity  of  pure  Christianity,  and  the 
furtherance  of  our  holy  religion;  they  are  ready  and 

*  This  was  the  name  that  was  then  borne  by  those  who  pre* 
!*ided  in  the  methodist  communion. 

Dd 


210 

willing  to  unite  and  form  one  body  with  any  reli- 
gious society,  which  shall  be  influenced  by  the  same 
catholic  spirit.  And  in  order  that  this  christian  end 
may  be  the  more  easily  effected,  they  further  declare, 
that  all  things  in  which  the  great  essentials  of  Chris- 
tianity or  the  characteristic  principles  of  their  church 
are  not  concerned,  they  are  willing  to  leave  to  fu- 
ture discussion;  being  ready  to  alter  or  modify  those 
points,  which,  in  the  opinion  of  the  protestant  episco- 
pal church,  are  subject  to  human  alteration.  And  it 
is  hereby  recommended  to  the  state  conventions,  to 
adopt  such  measures  or  propose  such  conferences 
with  Christians  of  other  denominations,  as  to  them- 
selves may  be  thought  most  prudent;  and  report  ac- 
cordingly to  the  ensuing  general  convention." 

On  the  reading  of  this  in  the  house  of  clerical 
and  lay  deputies,  they  were  astonished,  and  consi- 
dered it  as  altogether  preposterous;  tending  to  pro- 
duce distrust  of  the  stability  of  the  system  of  the 
episcopal  church,  without  the  least  prospect  of  em- 
bracing any  other  religious  body.  The  members 
generally  mentioned,  as  a  matter  of  indulgence,  that 
they  would  permit  the  withdrawing  of  the  paper;  no 
notice  to  be  taken  of  it.  A  few  gentlemen,  however, 
who  had  got  some  slight  intimations  of  the  corres- 
pondence between  Dr.  Coke  and  the  author,  who 
would  have  been  gratified  by  an  accommodation 
with  the  methodists,  and  who  thought  that  the  paper 
sent  was  a  step  in  measures  to  be  taken  to  that  ef- 
fect, spoke  in  favour  of  the  proposition.    But  it  was 


211 

not  to  be  endured;  and  the  bishops  silently  withdrew 
it,  agreeably  to  leave  given. 

To  guard  against  misconstruction,  at  some  future 
time,  ol'  tlie  correspondence  between  Dr.  Coke  and 
the  author,  he  records  it  here. 

In  the  spring  of  the  year  1791,  the  author  re- 
ceived from  that  gentleman  a  letter,  containing  a 
plan  of  what  he  considered  as  an  union  of  the  me- 
thodistical  society  with  the  episcopal  church.  The 
plan  was,  in  substance,  that  all  the  methodist  minis- 
ters, at  the  time  in  connexion,  were  to  receive  epis- 
copal ordination,  as  also  those  who  should  come  for- 
wards in  future  within  the  connexion;  such  ministers 
to  remain  under  the  government  of  the  then  super- 
intendants  and  their  successors.  Dr.  Coke's  motive 
to  the  proposed  union,  as  stated  in  his  letter,  was  an 
apprehension  entertained  by  him,  that  he  had  gone 
further  in  the  separation  than  had  been  designed  by 
Mr.  Wesley,  from  whom  he  had  received  his  com- 
mission. Mr.  Wesley  himself,  he  was  sure,  had  gone 
further  than  he  would  have  gone,  if  he  had  foreseen 
some  events  which  followed.  The  doctor  was  cer- 
tain, that  the  same  gentleman  was  sorry  for  the  sepa- 
ration, and  would  use  his  influence  to  the  utmost,  for 
the  accomplishment  of  a  re- union.  Dr.  Coke's  letter 
was  answered  by  the  author,  vvitli  the  reserve  which 
seemed  incumbent  on  one,  who  was  incompetent  to 
decide  with  effect  on  the  proposal  made. 

It  happened  that  Dr.  Coke,  before  he  received 
the  answer  to  his  letter,  hearing  of  the  decease  of 
Mr.  Wesley,  the  news  of  which  reached  America 


212 

during  the  short  interval  between  the  dates  of  the 
two  letters,  set  off  immediately  from  Baltimore  for 
Philadelphia,  to  take  his  passage  for  England.  On 
reaching  this  city  and  calling  on  Dr.  Magaw,  he  was 
much  disappointed  on  hearing  of  the  early  answer, 
lest  it  should  fall  into  the  hands  of  his  colleague — 
Mr.  Asbury.  He  visited  the  author,  in  company  of 
Dr  Magaw;  and  in  speaking  of  the  above  inci- 
dent, said,  that  although  he  hoped  Mr.  Asbury 
would  not  open  the  letter;  yet  he  might  do  so,  on 
the  supposition  that  it  related  to  their  joint  con- 
cern. The  conversation  was  general;  and  nothing 
passed,  that  gave  any  ground  of  expectation  of 
a  re-union,  on  the  principle  of  consolidation;  or 
any  other  principle,  than  that  of  the  continuing  of 
the  methodists  a  distinct  body  and  self-governed.  In 
short  there  were  held  out  only  the  terms  of  the  letter; 
in  which  there  does  not  seem  to  be  contemplated  any 
change  in  the  relation  of  the  episcopal  church  to  that 
society,  except  the  giving  of  them  access  to  the  epis- 
copal congregations,  while  there  was  sufficient  secu- 
rity provided,  to  prevent  the  clergy  of  the  latter  from 
having  access  to  congregations  ot"  the  methodists.  At 
least  it  is  here  supposed,  that  these  things  would  have 
been  unavoidably  the  result. 

The  author  saw  Dr.  Coke  twice  after  this;  once, 
by  appointment  at  Dr.  Magaw's,  where  nothing  ma- 
terial passed;  and  again,  alone  at  the  author's  house, 
where  Dr.  Coke  read  a  letter  which  he  had  written 
to  bishop  Seabury,  similar  to  that  which  he  had 
written  to  the  author;  but  with  the  difference  of  his 


213 

suggesting  to  bishop  Seabury  as  follows — Tliat  al- 
thoii2;h  the  methodists  would  have  confidence  in  any 
engagements  which  should  be  made  by  the  present 
bishops;  yet  there  might  in  future  be  some,  who,  on 
the  arrival  of  their  inferior  grades  of  preachers  to  a 
competency  to  the  ministry,  would  not  admit  them 
as  proposed  in  the  letter — That  to  guard  against 
the  danger  of  this,  there  w^ould  be  use  in  conse- 
crating Mr.  Asbury  to  the  episcopacy — And  that  al- 
though there  would  not  be  the  same  reasons  in  his 
(Dr.  Coke's)  case,  because  he  was  a  resident  of  En- 
gland; yet,  as  he  should  probably,  while  he  lived, 
occasionally  visit  America;  it  would  not  be  fit,  con- 
sidering he  was  Mr.  Asbury's  senior,  that  he  should 
appear  in  a  lower  character  than  this  gentleman. 
These  were,  in  substance,  the  sentiments  expressed; 
and  on  reading  this  part  of  the  letter,  he  desired  the 
author  to  take  notice,  that  he  did  not  make  a  condi- 
tion of  what  he  had  there  written.  There  was  no 
comment,  and  he  proceeded. 

In  this  conversation  he  said,  that  Mr.  Asbury  had 
,  opened  his  letter,  but  he  had  heard  nothing  from  him 
on  the  subject.  With  this  interview,  all  intercourse 
ended.  Dr.  Coke  soon  afterwards  embarked  for  En- 
gland; and  was  reported  to  have  had  an  interview 
with  Mr.  Asbury  somewhere  down  the  river,  on  his 
journey  to  the  ship.  The  author  avoided  speaking 
on  the  subject,  until  the  convention  in  1792;  and 
then  mentioned  it  only  to  the  bishops;  towards 
whom  there  was  understood  to  be  a  latitude.  It  was 
evident  from  some  circumstances  which  passed  ia 


r^ 


214 

conversation  with  Dr.  Coke,  that  there  was  a  degree 
of  jealousy,  if  not  of  misunderstanding,  between  him 
and  Mr  Asbury.  Whether  this  had  any  influence  in 
the  enterprise  of  the  former;  or  he  perceived  advan- 
tage Hkely  to  arise  to  him,  under  the  state  of  things 
which  would  take  place  in  England  on  the  decease 
of  Mr.  Wesley;  are  questions,  on  which  there  is  no 
judgment  here  formed.  The  determination  was 
adopted,  not  to  hinder  any  good  which  might  possi- 
bly accrue  hereafter;  although  it  was  perceived,  that 
this  could  not  be  on  the  terms  proposed. 

For  a  copy  of  the  letter  of  Dr.  Coke,  and  the 
answer  to  it,  see  the  Appendix,  No.  21. 

Perhaps  it  may  not  be  foreign  to  the  present  sub- 
ject to  take  notice,  that  the  author,  when  in  England, 
entertained  a  desire  of  seeing  the  late  Mr.  John  Wes- 
ley; with  the  view  of  stating  to  him  some  circum- 
stances, of  which  he  might  be  uninformed,  in  refer- 
ence to  the  design  then  lately  adopted,  of  withdraw- 
ing the  methodist  societies  in  America  from  the 
communion  of  the  episcopal  church.  Under  this 
idea,  there  was  obtained  a  letter  to  him  from  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Pilmore,  which  the  author  left  at  the  house 
of  Mr.  Wesley,  when  he  was  from  home;  but  no 
notice  was  taken  of  it.  Before  the  author's  depar- 
ture, intending  to  go  on  a  certain  day  into  the  city, 
he  sent  to  that  gentleman  a  letter  by  the  penny-post, 
expressing,  that  he  would  on  the  same  day  stop  at 
his  house,  if  convenient  to  him.  An  answer  was 
received,  and  is  still  in  possession,  the  purport  of 
which  is,  that  Mr.  W^esley  was  then  engaged  in  a 


215 

periodical  duty  of  an  examination  of  his  society;  but 
that  in  the  case  of  a  stay  of  a  week  or  two,  he  would 
derive  pleasure  from  the  interview  proposed.  As  the 
stay  was  only  ten  days  after,  and  the  latter  part  of 
the  time  was  taken  up  by  the  business  of  the  conse- 
cration and  in  returning  visits,  there  was  no  renewal 
of  the  proposal  of  an  interview,  especially  as  doubts 
were  entertained  of  the  delicacy  of  doing  so:  the  rest- 
ing of  an  hour's  conversation  on  the  event  of  a  stay 
of  a  fortnight  longer,  having  very  much  the  appear- 
ance of  a  declining  of  the  visit.  This  may  have 
arisen  from  the  supposition,  that  the  object  was  to 
impugn  a  measure  hastily  adopted  by  Mr.  Wesley, 
and  not  intended  to  be  rehnquished. 

The  author  had  also  carried  a  letter  from  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Pilmore  to  the  Rev.  Charles  Wesley,  and 
had  a  conversation  with  him  on  the  same  subject. 
He  expressed  himself  decidedly  against  the  new 
course  adopted;  and  gave  the  author  a  pamphlet 
published  by  his  brother  and  himself,  in  the  earlier 
part  of  their  lives,  against  a  secession  from  the 
church  of  England:  which,  he  said,  was  at  that  time 
proposed  by  some.  And  he  remarked,  that  the  whole 
of  the  pamphlet  might  be  considered  as  a  censure  on 
wliat  had  been  done  recently  in  America. 


L.  Page  26.    Of  the  Convention  in  1795. 

Bishop  White  presided  in  the  house  of  bishops; 
and  the  Rev.  Dr.  Smith  of  Pennsylvania  in  the  house 


216 

of  clerical  and  lay  deputies.  The  secretaries,  were 
the  Rev.  Joseph  Turner  of  the  former  house,  and 
the  Rev.  James  Abercrombie  of  the  latter. 

The  preacher  on  this  occasion  was  bishop  Pro- 
voost. 

Before  the  assembling  of  this  convention,  there 
took  place  an  incident,  threatning  to  produce  perma- 
nent dissatisfaction  between  bishops  Seabury  and  Pro- 
voost;  which,  however,  was  happily  prevented.  Al- 
though bishop  Seabury  had  been  chosen  bishop  of  the 
church  in  Rhode  Island;  the  congregation  of  Narra- 
ganset  in  that  state,  had  associated  with  the  church 
in  Massachusetts;  which  had  unwarily  admitted  the 
junction.  In  consequence,  a  clergyman  had  been 
ordained  for  the  congregation  by  bishop  Provoost. 
The  author,  during  the  sitting  of  the  convention,  re- 
ceived a  letter  from  bishop  Seabury,  respectfully  and 
affectionately  complaining  of  the  matter.  Bishop 
Provoost,  on  the  letter's  being  read  to  him,  said,  that 
on  receiving  the  letter  from  the  clergy  of  Massachu- 
setts, he  had  doubted  of  the  propriety  of  the  proposal 
in  it;  but  that  on  consulting  the  clergy  of  New  York, 
and  especially  those  in  the  most  intimacy  with  bishop 
Seabury,  he  was  advised  by  them  to  compliance;  but 
that  he  perceived  objections  to  such  conduct  in  indi- 
vidual congregations,  and  would  much  approve  of  a 
canon  to  prevent  it.  Such  a  canon,  was  accordingly 
prepared  and  passed.  It  is  beheved,  that  no  dissatis- 
faction remained. 

The  author  was  enabled  to  lay  before  this  con- 
yention  an  application  from  a  convention  in  North 


217 

Carolina,  for  the  consecration  of*  the  Rev.  Charles 
Peltiij;rew  their  bishop.  This  gentleman,  as  appears 
b}  a  subsequent  letter  from  him,  set  oft'  to  attend  the 
convention,  with  a  view  to  consecration;  but  was  pre- 
vented by  an  interruption  of  his  journey  in  conse- 
qtience  of  an  epidemic  fever  in  Norlblk,  which  made 
him  despair  of  arriving  in  time:  there  being  some 
interruptions  in  the  usual  accommodations  for  tra- 
velling. Why  nothing  was  done  afterwards,  for  the 
carrying  of  the  design  into  effect,  is  not  known,  un- 
less it  be  the  decease  of  the  reverend  person  in  ques- 
tion, which  must  have  happened  not  long  after. 

The  church  in  North  Carolina  having  organized 
itself  and  sent  deputies  to  the  general  convention 
about  three  years  ago,  it  may  be  an  act  of  justice  to 
perpetuate  their  former  effort;  rendering  it  probable, 
that  the  ensuing  inactivity  is  resolveable  into  the  want 
of  some  clergymen  of  sufficient  zeal  and  influence,  to 
take  the  lead  in  such  business. 

There  had  been,  previously,  an  exertion  to  the 
same  good  effect.  The  Rev.  James  L.  Wilson,  or- 
dained by  the  author  in  1789,  embarked  as  a  deputy 
to  the  general  convention  of  1792;  but  after  an  un- 
usually long  passage,  amved  too  late.  At  his  special 
request,  his  arrival  after  the  adjournment  was  noticed 
by  the  secretary,  as  it  now  stands,  below  the  journal. 
Mr.  W^ilson  returned  to  North  Carolina,  and  soon 
after  died. 

With  the  recommendation  of  Mr.  Pettigrew,  there 
came  a  letter  to  the  author,  expressive  of  solicitude 
because  of  what  he  considered,  and  his  electors  ap- 

E  e 


218 

pear  in  the  instrument  to  have  considered  a  departure 
in  his  certificate  from  the  appointed  form.  The  let- 
ter was  answered ;  and  the  answer  communicated  the 
information,  that  the  supposition  of  defect  was  owing 
to  their  not  having  been  made  acquainted  with  a 
canon  passed  at  the  immediately  preceding  conven- 
tion, providing  for  such  a  case  as  that  now  existing, 
in  which  some  of  the  electors,  because  of  the  want 
of  personal  acquaintance,  had  rested  their  recom- 
mendation on  the  testimony  of  their  brethren  in  the 
act. 

For  the  instrument  referred  to,  see  the  Appendix, 
No.  22. 

Some  time  before  the  convention,  there  was  sent 
to  the  author,  by  a  clergyman  from  South  Carolina, 
a  copy  of  a  printed  circular  letter,  signed  by  two 
clergymen  and  a  layman,  and  addressed  to  the  dif- 
ferent vestries.  The  signers  called  themselves  a 
select  committee,  from  a  representation  of  seven 
churches;  and  proposed  the  choosing  of  a  bishop: 
but  gave  such  reasons  for  the  measure,  as  indicated 
a  design  of  separating  from  the  union.  The  author 
conceived  it  to  be  his  duty,  to  lay  this  paper  before 
the  bishops:  who,  in  consequence,  after  the  testimo- 
nials of  Dr.  Robert  Smith  had  been  presented  to 
them  with  a  view  to  his  consecration,  desired  an  in- 
terview with  him.  In  that  interview,  the  author,  as 
president,  being  so  instructed  by  the  bishops,  asked 
him,  whether  the  convention,  which  had  been  held 
in  consequence  of  the  said  printed  paper,  had  adopted 
the  sentiments  of  it.     Dr.    Smith  then    asked — 


219 

Whether  his  consecration  was  to  depend  on  his  an- 
swer to  that  question.  The  president  repHed,  tliat 
he  was  not  instructed  on  the  point.  The  doctor  then 
immediately  said,  that  the  convention  liad  not  adopt- 
ed the  principles  of  tlie  paper.  So,  all  difficulty  on 
that  score  was  done  away.  There  existed  no  evi- 
dence to  the  contrary,  nor  have  there  been  any  sub- 
sequently received  to  that  effect.  It  has  never  been 
learned,  w  ho  was  the  penman  of  that  wretched  pro- 
duction. Probably,  the  oifensive  sentiments  con- 
tained in  it  were  a  temporizing  expedient;  designed 
to  obviate  prejudices  which  were  known  to  exist  in 
South  Carolina,  against  the  having  of  a  bishop  for 
that  state.  The  tendency  of  the  paper  to  a  severance 
of  the  church  in  South  Carohna  from  the  union,  was 
unequivocal. 

Although  the  principles  of  the  paper  were  not 
adopted  by  the  convention  of  South  Carohna,  as  ap- 
pears from  the  testimony  of  bishop  Smith;  yet,  as  it 
was  issued  with  a  view  to  important  consequences; 
and  as  the  propriety  of  the  conduct  of  the  house  of 
bishops  is  implicated  in  its  contents;  it  is  given  with- 
out the  signatures,  in  the  Appendix,  No.  2S. 

There  appear  on  the  journals  some  entries  re- 
quiring explanation,  concerning  the  Rev.  Dr.  Samuel 
Peters.  This  gentleman,  had  been  a  clergyman  of 
Connecticut  before  the  revolution.  He  had  gone  to 
England,  during  the  war;  and  sometime  before  the 
period  now  referred  to,  had  endeavoured  to  procure 
consecration  in  England,  with  the  view  of  being 
bishop  in  Vermont:  having  obtained  a  request  to  that 


220 

effect,  from  a  convention  held  in  the  said  state.  The 
archbishop  of  Canterbury,  had  decHned  to  consecrate 
any  further  for  the  United  States;  the  church  here 
being  already  supplied  with  the  succession.  It  is 
stated  in  the  documents,  that  his  reason  was  his  not 
being  authorized  by  the  act  of  parliament,  to  conse- 
crate any  further:  but  this  must  have  been  a  mistake 
of  the  framers  of  the  documents.  The  convention 
of  Vermont  being  thus  disappointed,  applied  to  the 
American  bishops.  There  was  but  one  clergyman 
in  that  state — The  Kev.  John  Cosins  Ogden — who 
had  not  been  and  who  did  not  stay  there  long.  Pro- 
bably, his  going  there  for  a  time,  was  with  the  view 
of  effecting  the  object  now  treated  of  The  conduct 
of  the  bishops,  in  declining  any  agency  in  the  busi- 
ness, is  rested  on  the  circumstance  that  the  church 
in  Vermont  had  not  acceded  to  the  constitution. 
There  were  besides  some  personal  circumstances, 
which  prevented  the  paying  of  much  respect  to  the 
solicitation.  It  was  this  transaction,  which  produced 
an  addition  to  one  of  the  canons;  requiring,  that  to 
entitle  the  church  in  any  state  to  a  resident  bishop, 
there  shall  be  at  least  six  presbyters  residing  and 
officiating  therein. 

There  are  on  the  journals  of  this  convention 
some  entries,  in  which  it  was  thought  expedient  to 
leave  a  transaction  unexplained;  and  so  it  might  have 
continued,  had  not  the  very  exceptionable  conduct 
of  an  individual  member,  after  the  recess,  rendered 
it  questionable,  whether  they  had  not  erred  in  not 
having  expelled  him  from  tlie  body:  the  only  punish- 


221 

inent  in  their  power,  since  there  could  have  been  no 
ecclesiastical  trial,  except  before  the  authority  of  his 
proper  diocess,  where  he  would  have  been  still  liable 
to  it.  There  also  arose  the  question,  whether  the 
bishops  had  acted  correctly,  in  rescuing  him  from 
expulsion. 

It  appears  on  the  journal  of  the  house  of  clerical 
and  lay  deputies,  that  on  Friday  the  11  th  of  Septem- 
ber, "  the  attention  of  the  house  was  called  by  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Andrews  to  the  consideration  of  a  pamphlet 
lately  published,  entitled — Strictures  on  the  love  of 
Power  in  the  Prelacy — by  a  Member  of  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Association  in  South  Carolina — 
which  he  declared  to  be  a  virulent  attack  upon  the 
doctrines  and  discipline  of  our  church,  and  a  libel 
against  the  house  of  bishops;  and  which  was  al- 
ledgcd  to  be  written  by  a  member  of  this  house." 
On  Thursday  the  1 7th,  it  is  recorded  on  the  journal 
of  the  house  of  bishops — "  This  house  requested  the 
house  of  clerical  and  lay  deputies,  to  appoint  a  com- 
mittee of  their  house,  to  meet  a  committee  of  the 
house  of  bishops.  The  committee  of  this  house  is 
bishop  White  and  bishop  Provoost.  The  house  of 
clerical  and  lay  deputies  agreed  to  the  request  of 
this  house,  and  the  joint  committee  met  in  the 
bishops^  chamber.''  Further,  the  journal  of  the  house 
of  clerical  and  lay  deputies  for  the  same  day  states 
as  follows — "  The  committee"  (meaning  that  of  the 
whole  house)  "rose,  and  their  chairman  reported, 
that  they  had  considered  the  paper  referred  to  them 
yesterday,  which  was  from  the  author  of  the  pam- 


222 

phlet  entitled — Strictures  on  the  Love  of  Power  in 
the  Prelacy,  in  which  he  professes  sorrow  for  the 
publication,  and  that  they  were  of  opinion  that  the 
house  should  accept  it  as  a  satisfactory  concession. 
Resolved,  that  the  house  adopt  the  above  report." 

This  termination  of  the  business,  although  pressed 
by  the  bishops,  was  not  acquiesced  in  without  consi- 
derable opposition;  and  to  the  last,  three  very  respect- 
able lay  gentlemen,  who  were  of  a  remarkably  con- 
ciliatory character,  pressed  for  permission  to  enter 
their  protest.  It  was  not  granted:  and  as  this  has 
been  the  only  instance,  in  which  the  question  of  a 
right  to  protest  has  undergone  discussion,  the  re- 
cording of  a  denial  of  the  right,  falls  in  with  the  de- 
sign of  the  present  work. 

Whether  the  course  of  conduct  adopted  were 
right  or  otherwise,  it  happened  as  is  here  related. 
The  author  of  the  pamphlet,  seeing  expulsion  full 
before  him,  thought  fit  to  look  to  the  house  of  bishops 
for  a  shelter.  After  considerable  negociation,  in 
which  the  author  was  the  medium  of  communication 
between  the  house  and  him,  he  sent  to  the  house  an 
ample  apology  for  his  misconduct;  which  induced 
them  to  interfere,  in  order  to  put  a  stop  to  the  pro- 
ceedings: and  hence  their  proposal  of  a  joint  com- 
mittee. The  offender  gave  subsequent  evidence,  that 
his  professed  penitence  was  insincere,  although  it 
had  been  accompanied  by  a  profusion  of  tears,  when 
he  discussed  the  subject  with  the  author,  in  the  pre- 
sence of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Smith  of  Pennsylvania.  This 
was  an  issue  which  could  not  have  been  foreseen, 


223 

and  which  it  would  have  been  uncharitable  to  have 
thought  probable.  The  house  of  bishops  committed 
the  apology  to  the  keeping  of  the  author,  (where  it 
now  remains,)  not  to  be  made  use  of,  unless  in  the 
case  of  future  misconduct.  When  this  happened, 
bishops  Provoost  and  Madison,  who  alone  were  pre- 
sent when  the  deposit  w^as  made,  were  written  to 
for  their  permission  to  send  a  copy  of  the  apology, 
to  the  ecclesiastical  autliority  of  the  diocess  to  which 
the  offender  belonged.  Leave  was  given,  and  the 
document  was  sent* 


M.  Page  21.    Of  the  Convention  in  1799. 

Bishop  White  presided  in  the  house  of  bishops, 
and  Dr.  William  Smith  of  Pennsylvania  in  the  house 
of  clerical  and  lay  deputies.  The  secretaries  were 
the  Rev.  John  Henry  Hobart  of  the  former,  and  the 
Rev.  James  Abercrombie  of  the  latter. 

The  consecration  of  Dr.  Bass  during  the  recess 
of  the  convention,  and  his  appearing  on  this  occasion 

*  The  personal  abuse  in  the  licentious  pamphlet,  was  princi- 
pally levelled  at  bishop  Seabury;  and  the  ground  of  it,  was  his 
supposed  authorship  of  a  printed  defence  of  the  episcopal  nega- 
tive, written  and  acknowledged  by  another  respectable  divine  of 
this  church.  On  the  author  of  the  present  work  the  pamphleteer 
bestowed  a  commendation,  which  impliedly  exempted  him  from 
the  general  charge  of  "  Love  of  Power  in  the  Prelacy."  Coming 
from  such  a  pen,  it  could  be  no  cause  of  self-gratulation:  but  it 
was  encouragement  to  assist  in  the  exposure  which  took  place, 
and  which  is  to  be  attributed  principally  to  Dr.  Andrews. 


224 

induces  the  record,  that  on  the  7th  of  May,  1797,  he 
was  consecrated  in  Christ  church  in  the  city  of  Phi- 
ladelphia, by  the  presiding  bishop,  assisted  by  bishops 
Provoost  and  Claggett. 

It  is  evident  on  an  inspection  of  the  journal,  that 
the  bishops  had  no  opportunity  of  expressing  their 
sense  on  the  question  of  publishing  the  draft  of  ar- 
ticles which  it  contains.  Such  a  publication  was 
certainly  very  injudicious;  if  for  no  other  reason, 
because  it  might  have  been  expected  to  be  easily 
mistaken  for  the  sense  of  at  least  one  of  the  houses 
of  the  convention.  Indeed  it  was  so  misunderstood: 
whereas  it  was  the  sense  of  a  committee  only;  not 
an  individual  besides  having  delivered  in  his  place 
any  opinion  on  any  article.  But  this  was  not  the 
worst.  It  tended  to  excite  religious  acrimony,  with- 
out any  possible  good  effect  at  the  present;  and  with 
the  probable  bad  effect  of  the  greater  acrimony,  on 
an  opportunity  of  settlement  in  future. 

In  order  to  show  the  importance  of  the  exercise 
of  great  care  and  much  deliberation,  in  any  measure 
which  may  effect  Christian  verity;  the  author  will 
here  notice,  that  an  important  doctrine  of  the  church 
of  England  was  unwarily  affected  in  the  body  of  the 
articles,  by  the  introduction  of  a  single  word.  It  was 
"  priesthood,"  as  applied  in  the  9th  article,  to  denote 
all  the  orders  of  the  Christian  ministry;  and  not  con- 
fined to  the  order  of  presbyters,  as  in  the  established 
ordinal,  of  the  former  of  which  there  is  no  example 
in  the  institutions  of  the  church  of  England. 


225 

It  is  well  known,  tliat  the  English  reformers  took 
care  to  sho^v,  that  tliey  did  not  mean  to  identify  the 
names  of  the  Christian  ministry  with  those  of  the 
Jewish  priesthood.  Altliough  they  retained  the  name 
of  "  priest,"  which  is  npgc-gvTepof  (or  "  presbyter") 
with  an  English  termination,  and  in  the  Roman  ca- 
tholic church  had  stood  alike  for  that  Greek  word 
and  for  lepev?;  yet  this  church  having  in  Latin  adopt- 
ed the  word  "  sacerdos,"  the  last  was  carefully 
avoided  by  the  reformers,  and  "  presbyter"  was  put 
in  its  place.  It  would  have  been  in  harmony  with 
this,  if  the  article  in  question  had  applied  "  priest- 
hood" to  the  single  order  of  presbyters.  But  it  is 
applied  to  the  three  orders  collectively;  which  is 
another  matter.  To  perceive  the  effect,  it  is  only 
necessary  to  suppose  the  said  9th  article  translated 
into  Latin:  in  which  case,  if  the  word  "presbyteri- 
atus"  should  be  used,  it  would  be  wide  of  the  in- 
tended sense.  On  the  other  hand,  if"  sacerdotium" 
should  be  taken,  the  innovation  would  stand  con- 
fessed. This  would  have  been  agreeable  to  the 
theory  of  the  individual  clergyman  who  drafted  the 
articles;  but  the  rest  of  the  committee  are  here  be- 
lieved to  have  been  unaware  of  it.  The  above  fact 
is  recorded  in  order  to  show,  that  if  ever  the  doc- 
trinal system  should  be  reviewed,  it  should  be  done 
under  some  other  circumstances,  than  during  the 
huny  of  conventional  business.  In  short,  the  review 
should  be  made  by  select  persons,  taking  due  time 
for  so  important  a  measure.  After  this,  the  only 
thing  left  for  the  convention,  should  be  the  adoption 

Ff 


226 

or  the  rejection  of  what  had  been  ^  prepared.  This 
would  be  as  near  as  circumstances  permit,  to  what 
was  done  in  England  at  the  reformation. 

It  is  not  here  designed  to  charge  any  other  fault 
on  the  articles  proposed.  They  are,  in  substance, 
what  is  contained  in  the  thirty-nine  Articles,  without 
any  superaddition,  except  in  the  particular  stated. 
But  the  remarks  may  serve  to  show,  that  in  the 
work  of  clearing  that  code  of  what  may  be  thought 
unnecessary  positions,  there  is  the  danger  of  admit- 
ting some  novelty,  more  fruitful  of  controversy  than 
what  may  be  done  away.  In  the  present  instance, 
the  novelty  introduced  is  susceplible  of  the  con- 
struction, of  obtruding  on  the  church  the  notions  of 
"  sacrifice,^^  in  the  strict  and  proper  sense;  of  "altar," 
as  the  place  of  it;  and  of  "  priest,"  as  the  sacrificer. 

In  this  convention,  considerable  animosity  was 
excited  in  the  house  of  clerical  and  lay  deputies,  on 
the  subject  of  the  election  of  a  reverend  gentleman 
to  the  episcopacy  in  New  Jersey.  Agreeably  to  the 
distinction  taken  by  the  author,  of  recording  per- 
sonal matters  then  only  when  necessary  to  illustrate 
ecclesiastical  effects,  and  when  something  appears 
on  the  journal  which  may  be  thus  elucidated;  it  may 
be  proper  to  note  in  this  place,  that  whatever  ground 
was  taken  by  the  said  house  in  the  strict  construction 
of  the  canon,  fixing  the  number  of  clerical  incumbents 
in  a  state  in  which  a  bishop  might  be  chosen;  there 
was  a  more  important  reason  at  the  bottom  of  the 
objection  made.  The  truth  is,  that  the  gentleman 
elected  was  considered  by  his  brethren  generally,  as 


227 

being  more  attached  to  the  doctrines  and  the  prac- 
tices obtaining  in  some  other  churches,  than  to  those 
of  his  own.  Wiiat  rendered  the  management  of  the 
case  the  more  dillicuU,  was  his  being  brought  for- 
wards by  some  gentlemen,  who  had  always  professed 
the  strongest  disapprobation  of  the  least  deviation 
iVoni  the  institutions  of  the  church.  No  doubt,  they 
thought  they  perceived  some  advantages,  counter- 
balancing the  unquestionable  fact,  that  the  bishop 
elect  had  been  not  a  little  reprehensible  in  that  line. 
The  bishops  kept  themselves  from  taking  any  in- 
terest in  the  subject;  no  one  of  them  expressing  his 
opinion,  so  far  as  is  here  known.  It  is  to  be  hoped, 
that  their  conduct  will  be  the  same  on  any  similar 
occasions  which  may  occur.  Delicacy  requires  this; 
as,  in  the  case  of  the  requisite  testimonials,  the  ap- 
probation of  the  consecrating  bishops  will  still  be 
necessary. 

Bishop  Bass  having  been  consecrated  between 
the  dates  of  the  last  convention  and  the  present;  it 
may  be  proper  in  this  place  to  guard  against  any 
false  impressions  w^hich  might  be  made,  at  the  time 
of  the  former  application;  and  a  paper  pui'porting 
to  be  the  dissent  of  two  clergymen.  This  may 
otherwise  be  thought  to  have  influenced  the  deter- 
mination in  the  first  instance,  and  to  have  pre- 
vented the  consecration  of  Dr.  Bass.  But  it  would 
be  a  mistake.  The  objections  referred  to,  were  ge- 
nerally supposed  to  receive  no  weight  from  the  cha- 
racters of  the  two  objecting  clergymen.  They  were 
represented  as  being  not  at  all  attached  to  the  eccle- 
siastical system  of  the  episcopal  church.    Of  this,  or 


228 

of  the  contrary,  the  bishops  possessed  no  such  evi- 
dence, as  was  sufficient  to  be  a  ground  of  their  con- 
duct at  the  time.  There  was  no  use  in  looking  out 
for  evidence,  as  there  was  other  ground  on  which 
the  consecration  was  dechned — the  want  of  the 
requisite  number  of  bishops  to  be  consecrated  in 
England.  When  bishop  Bass  was  subsequently  ad- 
mitted to  the  episcopacy,  the  bishops  who  consecra- 
ted him  had  made  up  their  minds  on  the  merits  of 
the  preceding  objection  to  him. 

There  was  also  a  paper,  purporting  to  be  the  dis- 
sent of  his  own  vestry;  which  was  denied  and  found 
to  be  not  true. 


N.  Page  S8.    Of  tlie  Convention  in  1801. 

Bishop  White  presided  in  the  house  of  bishops, 
and  the  Rev.  Dr.  Abraham  Beach  in  the  house  of 
clerical  and  lay  deputies.  The  secretaries,  were  the 
Rev.  Henry  Waddell  of  the  former  house,  and  the 
Rev.  Ashbel  Baldwin  of  the  latter.  The  occasion 
was  opened  with  a  sermon  by  the  presiding  bishop. 

No  sooner  were  the  convention  organized,  than 
there  came  from  the  house  of  clerical  and  lay  depu- 
ties a  call  for  a  letter  which  they  understood  to  have 
been  sent  to  the  author  by  bishop  Provoost,  on  the 
subject  of  his  resigning  of  the  episcopal  jurisdiction. 
This  measure  raised  a  very  serious  question,  made 
the  more  important  by  its  being  unexpected.  The 
whole  of  the  merits  of  it,  so  far  as  it  was  discussed 
at  the  time,  is  in  the  entry  of  the  house  of  bishops  on 


229 

Iheir  journal:  which  is  therefore  given  in  the  Appen- 
dix, No.  24. 

As  the  articles  were  at  last  established  by  this 
convention,  the  author  thinks  it  may  be  of  use,  to 
give  a  narrative  of  some  particulars  in  the  manage- 
ment of  that  matter;  in  addition  to  what  has  been 
stated  relative  to  the  proceeding  in  1792. 

When  the  book  was  edited  with  the  proposed  al- 
terations of  1 785;  no  sooner  were  they  known  in  the 
different  states,  than  the  sentiment  became  general, 
that  they  were  not  to  be  received  without  alterations; 
while  yet  there  was  nothing  like  unanimity,  in  regard 
to  what  the  alterations  should  be.  The  same  may 
be  said  in  regard  to  the  thirty-nine  Articles.  Some 
changes,  independently  on  what  was  of  a  local  and 
political  nature,  seemed  desired  by  all:  but  of  any 
considerable  agreement  in  particulars,  there  was  lit- 
tle prospect. 

Accordingly,' the  church  was  left  in  a  situation 
very  embarrassing,  in  regard  to  the  standard  of  her 
doctrinal  profession.  On  the  one  hand,  the  articles, 
with  the  exception  of  the  political  parts,  the  obliga- 
tion of  which  had  been  abrogated  by  divine  provi- 
dence through  the  instrumentality  of  the  revolution, 
were  still  the  acknowledged  faith  of  the  church: 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  they  could  not  be  edited  as 
such,  without  changes  at  least  in  the  manner  of  ex- 
hibiting them;  which  no  individual  had  a  right  to  re- 
gulate. What  rendered  the  situation  of  the  church 
the  worst  in  this  respect,  was,  that  it  suited  the 
opinions  of  some,  to  declare  in  consequence  of  it. 


230 

that  she  had  no  articles;  and  could  have  none,  until 
they  should  be  framed  by  a  convention,  and  esta- 
blished by  its  authority.  In  support  of  this  sentiment, 
they  pleaded  what  has  been  stated  as  the  very  ex- 
ceptionable manner  of  doing  business,  adopted  by 
the  house  of  clerical  and  lay  deputies  in  the  year 
1789.  That  house,  in  regard  to  every  part  of  the 
prayer  book  on  vs^hich  they  acted,  brought  the  office 
forward  as  a  matter  originating  with  them;  and  not 
their  alterations,  as  affecting  an  office  already  known 
and  of  obligation.  It  was  answered,  that  this  was 
an  assumption  of  but  one  of  the  houses  of  a  single 
convention;  that  the  other  house  had  even  then 
adopted  a  contrary  course;  that  the  same  had  been 
done  in  all  the  preceding  conventions,  and  that  in  the 
only  subsequent  convention  in  which  there  had  been 
any  alteration  of  a  former  standard — meaning  of  the 
ordinal,  altered  in  1792 — it  had  been  so  acted  on,  as 
to  acknowledge  the  obligation  of  the  old  forms,  with 
the  exception  of  the  political  parts,  until  altered.  This 
seems  conclusive  reasoning:  and  yet  the  opposite 
doctrine  was  held  by  many;  which  threatened  un- 
happy consequences. 

During  the  convention  of  1 789,  although  nothing 
was  done  relatively  to  the  articles,  there  was  much 
serious  conversation  on  the  subject:  when  the  author 
was  surprized  to  find,  that  bishop  Seabury,  the  only 
bishop  at  the  convention  besides  himself,  doubted  of 
the  need  of  articles;  and  was  rather  inclined  to  be- 
lieve, that  the  object  of  them  might  be  accomplished, 
through  the  medium  of  the  liturgy.   This  was  so  wide 


231 

of  what  might  have  been  expected  from  his  usual 
turn  of  scntinienl,  that  to  the  author,  there  seemed 
at  the  time  no  way  of  accounting  for  it,  otherwise 
than  by  the  supposition,  tiiat  the  bishop  conceived 
tlie  articles  to  be  nearer  to  the  height  of  Calvinism, 
than  they  are  found  to  be  on  due  consideration  of 
their  history,  and  of  cotemporary  controversies.  But 
it  has  since  appeared,  that  there  had  never  been  the 
thirty-nine  Articles  or  any  such  standard  in  the  non- 
juring  church  of  Scotland,  in  which  bishop  Seabury 
was  consecrated,  and  to  the  ways  of  which  he  was 
very  much  attached.  But  the  said  church,  very  soon 
after  the  time  here  referred  to,  and  when  her  clergy 
took  the  oaths  to  the  government,  manifested  their 
consent  with  the  church  of  England,  by  adopting 
her  thirty-nine  Articles.  Indeed,  there  was  never  sup- 
posed to  have  existed  a  disagreement  in  regard  to 
doctrine:  but  it  was  the  result  of  the.  independency 
of  each  church  on  the  other.* 

*  In  Mr.  Belsham's  Life  of  Mr.  Theophilus  Lindsey,  bisliop 
Seabury  is  represented  as  a  Calviiiist.  Nothing  can  be  further 
from  the  truth.  In  the  same  work,  there  is  an  anecdote  tend- 
ing to  lower  Ins  cliaracter,  on  account  of  an  incident  which  took 
place  at  a  commencement  in  New  Haven,  in  which  the  bishop 
had  no  more  to  say,  than  Mr.  Belsham  himself:  as  the  author  has 
been  informed  on  the  best  authority.  It  was  equally  unworthy 
of  the  biographer  to  speak  with  contempt  of  the  Scotish  conse- 
crators  of  the  bishop,  not  only,  because  their  characters  repel 
the  charge  of  ignorance  thrown  on  them;  but,  because  their  hav- 
ing been  so  long  under  the  lash  of  the  law,  for  adherence  to  the 
dictates  of  their  consciences,  ought  to  have  produced  a  fellow 
feeling  in  a  man  similarlv  situated. 


232 

In  the  convention  of  1792,  the  subject  had  been 
discussed  among  the  bishops  in  friendly  conversauon; 
when  the  opinions  of  bishops  Provoost  and  Madison 
were  directlj  against  the  having  of  articles;  while 
bishop  Claggett  and  the  author  were  in  favour  of 
them.  The  remarks  of  bishop  Seabury  were  gene- 
ral; rather  in  the  way  of  doubt  as  to  the  necessity  of 
articles;  although,  on  the  other  side,  he  acknow- 
ledged his  inability  to  answer  an  argument  pressed 
on  him — that  without  them,  individual  ministers 
would  have  to  do  by  their  respective  will  and  autho- 
rity, what  had  better  be  done  by  known  law,  for  the 
preventing  of  the  delivery  of  opposite  doctrines  to 
their  flocks,  by  different  preachers. 

However  moderate  or  uncertain  bishop  Seabury 
was  on  the  subject,  the  clergy  and  the  laity  of  his 
diocess  thought  differently;  as  appeared  in  the  con- 
vention of  1799,  held  not  long  after  his  decease.  At 
the  pressing  instance  of  the  deputies  from  that  state, 
and  in  consequence  of  instructions  to  them,  the  busi- 
ness was  then  entered  on;  although  probably  with 
the  presumption  on  the  minds  of  the  proposers,  that 
it  would  be  finished  during  the  session.  It  however 
happened  otherwise;  the  matter  then  ending  with  a 
proposed  body  of  articles  wholly  new  in  form,  edited 
with  the  journal.  The  opinion  has  been  already  inti- 
mated that  this  was  a  very  injudicious  measure:  but 
there  may  now  be  added,  that  it  proved  beneficial 
in  its  unexpected  consequences.  It  appeared  an  in- 
judicious measure,  on  the  same  ground  on  which 
the  proposal  of  1785  was  found  to  be  siich:  that  is, 


233 

as  unsettling  a  present  fixture,  without  any  reason- 
able prospect  of  establishing  a  substitute.  If  it  were 
beneficial  in  its  consequences;  this  lia))pcned  by  its 
showing  of  the  improbability  of  agreement  in  a  new 
form,  and  its  thus  contributing  to  the  recognizing  of 
the  old  articles.  Even  the  mistakes  of  readers  con- 
tributed to  this  etfect.  For  it  is  astonishing  how 
many,  even  of  the  clergy,  considered  what  was 
edited  as  proposed  for  the  acceptance  of  a  future 
convention:  whereas  it  was  only  recorded  by  one  of 
the  houses  to  be  matter  of  future  discussion.  As  for 
the  bishops,  they  never  saw  the  contemplated  arti- 
cles, before  they  were  printed  with  the  journal:  and 
they  who  read  attentively  must  perceive,  that  it  was 
merely  a  report  of  a  committee  of  the  other  house, 
without  any  evidence  of  their  approving  of  a  single 
sentence  of  it.  These  remarks,  should  be  considered 
as  having  no  reference  to  any  question  concerning 
the  correctness  of  the  report.  Let  it  have  been  cor- 
rect or  not;  and  although  the  author  thinks  it 
substantially  correct,  yet  he  is  confident,  that  the 
issue  must  have  been  the  same. 

That  issue  is  the  adoption  of  the  articles,  as 
edited  by  the  convention  of  the  present  year.  Even 
during  the  session  of  the  body,  and  when  the  senti- 
ment had  obtained  generally,  that  no  new  set  of  ar- 
ticles should  be  attempted;  the  author  was  often  as- 
sailed by  members  who  had  adopted  the  principle; 
urging,  each  of  them,  that  there  might  be  an  ex- 
emption in  regard  to  some  one  point,  the  most  de- 
sired by  him  to  be  corrected.     To  all  applications 

<5g 


234 

of  this  sort  his  answer  was,  that  he  was  content 
to  accept  the  articles  as  they  were  (the  political 
parts  being  understood  to  be  already  altered,  with- 
out any  conventional  act)  as  the  ground  of  union; 
that  if  they  should  be  thrown  open  to  discussion, 
there  were  various  particulars,  in  which  he  thought 
they  might  be  improved;  that  all  those  particulars  he 
should  think  himself  bound  in  conscience  to  bring 
forwards;  that  no  doubt  many  other  members  would 
do  the  like;  and  that  then — What  probability  was 
there,  of  there  being  edited  any  articles? 

The  author  having  had  so  much  occasion,  in  the 
relation  of  the  proceedings  of  this  business,  to  refer 
to  his  own  conduct;  he  thinks  that  there  will  be  pro- 
priety in  his  presenting  of  the  grounds  of  it. 

On  the  general  question — Whether  it  be  expe- 
dient to  have  a  body  of  articles,  it  has  always  ap- 
peared, as  already  hinted,  that  to  establish  them,  is 
merely  to  accomplish  by  a  general  regulation,  what 
will  otherwise  be  done  by  individual  ministers  at  will; 
and  this,  sometimes,  in  intemperate  and  scandalous 
opposition  to  one  another.  For  instance,  in  relation 
to  the  divinity  of  our  blessed  Saviour,  and  the  atone- 
ment made  by  him  for  sin;  it  cannot  be  conceived, 
that  an  advocate  for  these  doctrines  will  knowingly 
permit  them  to  be  contradicted  in  his  pulpit;  or,  that 
a  denier  of  them  will  permit  them  to  be  advocated 
or  acted  on  in  his.  Accordingly,  there  will  be  arti- 
cles, written  or  unwritten;  and  the  inquiry  should  be 
contined  to  the  point  of  tlie  most  judicious  depositary 
of  the  power. 


235 

When  the  author  was  in  England;  being  one  day 
in  company  with  a  unitarian  minister — a  gentleman 
of  consideiable  note  in  the  literary  world — liberty 
was  taken  to  inquire,  in  what  way  the  societies  of 
Iiis  faitli  held  their  places  of  worship;  and  whether, 
as  in  America,  the  property  were  vested  in  persons 
chosen  by  the  congregations.  He  answered  w  ith  a 
smile — Oh  no;  for  then,  in  consequence  of  the  ease 
Avith  which  respectable  applicants  are  permitted  to 
take  pews  among  us,  it  might  happen,  that  in  the 
choice  of  a  minister,  an  interest  would  be  created  in 
favour  of  a  pastor,  not  entertaining  the  belief,  for  the 
maintainance  of  which  a  house  had  been  erected. 
He  said,  that  to  guard  against  this,  the  meeting 
houses  were  vested  in  persons  who  may  be  depend- 
ed on;  and  who  perpetuate  the  trust  to  others,  of  the 
same  faith.  What  is  this,  but  an  indirect  way  of 
accomplishing  the  object,  for  which  articles  are  de- 
signed.'^ There  was  not  omitted  a  remark  to  the  effect 
in  the  conversation  alluded  to:  a  freedom,  which  grew 
out  of  a  previous  conversation  on  the  subject. 

The  house  of  worship  especially  referred  to,  was 
that  known  by  the  name  of  "  Essex-street  Chapel." 
Within  these  i^ew  years  there  has  been  published  the 
life  of  the  Rev.  Theophilus  Lindsey,  its  first  minister, 
by  the  Rev.  Thomas  Belsham,  who  is  now  its  pastor. 
From  the  work  it  appears,  that  the  trustees  of  the 
building  have  ordered  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer, 
as  corrected  by  Mr.  Lindsey,  to  be  deposited  in  the 
chest  with  the  title  deeds;  to  be  the  rule  of  worship 


236 

in  future,  and  no  alterations  to  be  permitted,  without 
the  consent  of  the  major  number  of  the  trustees. 

It  ought  not  to  be  thought  an  indecorum,  towards 
a  mode  of  profession  with  which  the  author  has  no 
concern,  to  notice  the  above  particular  as  an  historic 
fact;  and  to  apply  it  to  the  illustration  of  the  im- 
practicability of  the  principle,  on  which  the  theory  in 
question  is  grounded. 

In  the  book  referred  to,  there  is  an  office  for 
infant  baptism:  why  should  this  be  required  by  a 
permanent  regulation,  when  some  professing  Chris- 
tians confine  the  institution  to  adults,  and  others  al- 
low of  no  baptism,  but  that  of  the  Spirit?  The  remark 
applies  to  the  celebiating  of  the  eucharist  under  the 
elements  of  bread  and  wine,  in  opposition  to  those 
who  contend  for  spiritual  feeding  only.  In  relation 
to  both  the  sacraments,  some,  who  acknowledge  the 
external  celebration  of  them  by  the  apostles,  affirm, 
that  the  ordinances  were  limited  to  the  apostolic  age. 
The  observance  of  the  Lord's  day,  commonly  called 
Sunday,  is  exacted  throughout  the  book:  but  why, 
when  there  are  persons  who  conscientiously  stickle 
for  the  seventh  day  of  the  week?  Other  questions  might 
be  proposed:  and  who  knows  what  new  opinions  may 
arise,  which  may  be  thought  worthy  of  sufferance, 
and  accordingly  draw  the  book  out  of  the  chest? 
The  compiler  of  it  was  so  sensible  of  this,  that  in  his 
last  review,  he  omitted  the  apostles'  creed:  and  one 
of  liis  reasons  was — "  no  man  or  number  of  men  to- 
gether, have  any  authority  to  make  a  creed  for 
others."     This  brings  the  matter  to  a  question  of 


237 

words;  since,  in  the  above,  it  is  impossible  to  act 
without  a  declaration  of  belief,  although  not  under 
the  name  of  a  creed. 

In  a  note,  the  reasonableness  of  the  proceeding  is 
defended  on  the  principle,  that  the  trustees,  who  have 
the  custody  of  the  book  and  thereby  jurisdiction  over 
the  worship  of  the  chapel,  are  the  proprietors  of  it. 
Let  but  the  plea  be  extended  to  any  church  or  cha- 
pel in  any  part  of  England  or  of  America;  with  the 
proviso  that  none  are  compelled  to  join  in  the  wor- 
ship performed  in  it;  and  there  ceases  all  ground  of 
coujplaint  on  the  subject  of  confessions  and  creeds. 

These  things  are  not  said  without  the  conviction, 
that,  in  the  premises,  ecclesiastical  authority  is  liable 
to  be  extended  much  too  far.  All  contended  for  is, 
that  this  species  of  discipline,  must  be  exercised  in 
one  shape  or  in  another.  It  is  called  discipline:  for 
as  to  the  truth  of  synodical  determinations,  further 
than  as  they  agree  with  Scripture,  no  sound  pro- 
testant  will  affirm  it. 

Accordingly,  we  are  necessarily  led  to  the  ques- 
tion, whether  the  proper  mean  be  the  formula  of  the 
thirty-nine  articles.  God  forbid  that  they  should  be 
admitted,  otherwise  than  on  the  ground  of  their  be- 
ing in  substance  a  body  of  divine  truth:  which  they 
may  be,  consistently  with  incorrect  statements  in 
some  points,  not  necessarily  involved  in  that  object. 
For  the  illustrating  of  this  distinction,  there  shall  be 
here  cited  an  instance,  which,  it  is  supposed,  will 
admit  of  no  dispute.  In  the  sixth  article,  the  books 
of  holy  Scripture  are  affirmed  to  be  the  rule  of  faith: 


238 

and  the  required  subscription  is  evidently  inconsist- 
ent with  the  rejection  of  any  of  the  books  specified. 
But  when  there  are  introduced  the  incidental  ex- 
pressions— "  of  which  there  never  was  any  doubt  in 
the  church;"  it  is  apparently  contradictory  to  what 
ecclesiastical  history  infornris  us,  in  regard  to  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  second  Epistle  of  St. 
Peter,  the  Epistle  of  St.  James,  the  second  and  third 
Epistles  of  St.  John,  and  the  Apocalypse:  concerning 
all  of  which  there  were  doubts,  although  cleared  up 
on  full  inquiry.  It  is  within  the  meaning  of  the  form 
of  subscription  in  this  church,  that  the  prominent 
fact  of  the  authenticity  of  those  books  may  be  ac- 
knowledged, while  the  subordinate  fact,  couched  un- 
der the  recited  expressions,  is  rejected.  It  is  not 
equally  manifest  that  the  same  latitude  of  interpre- 
tation is  allowable  on  the  ground  of  the  form  of  sub- 
scription in  the  church  of  England. 

But  it  will  be  said,  that  supposing  the  articles  to 
contain  the  whole  substance  of  revealed  truth,  it  is 
the  fault  of  them,  that  they  contain  much  more;  em- 
bracing the  tenets  of  the  Calvinistic  system.  In  con- 
trariety to  this  assertion,  the  persuasion  is  enter- 
tained, that  they  will  be  found,  on  a  diligent  attention 
to  the  subject,  to  have  been  framed  with  a  studied 
latitude  on  the  questions,  which  were  afterwards 
denominated  the  five  points,  in  the  controversy  be- 
tween the  Calvinists  and  the  Arminians:  this,  with  the 
exception  of  the  doctrine  of  final  perseverance,  to 
which  the  whole  system  of  the  church  of  England 
stands  opposed;  the  doctrine  not  being  held  at  that 


239 

time  by  the  description  of  people  afterwards  called 
Calvinists;  who  as  yet  continued  in  the  opinion  of  St. 
Austin,  in  that  particular.  It  may  be  proved,  that  in  the 
reign  of  Edward  VI.  when  the  articles  were  framed, 
there  was  a  diversity  of  sentiments  on  those  points; 
and  yet,  that  neither  side  complained  of  their  being 
excluded.  Far  from  it,  when,  in  the  reign  of  Eliza- 
beth, Calvinism  canie  in  with  greater  authority  from 
Geneva,  the  constant  complaint  of  the  puritans  was, 
that  the  articles  were  not  sufficiently  evangelical,  in 
that  matter.  Hence,  the  framing  of  what  were  called 
the  Lambeth  articles;  and  the  pressing  of  them  at  that 
time,  and  afterwards  in  the  reign  of  king  James;  al- 
though without  effect.  It  is  but  to  compare  the 
thirty-nine  Articles  with  the  Westminster  confession, 
or  with  the  decrees  of  the  synod  of  Dort,  to  perceive 
how  general  and  guarded  the  first  were,  on  the  topics 
on  which  the  others  are  very  particular  and  express. 
Let  these  remarks  suffice  on  a  subject,  on  which  it 
ought  not  to  be  expected  to  be  in  this  place  more 
minute. 

For  the  form  of  subscription  in  this  church,  and 
for  that  required  in  the  church  of  England,  see  the 
Appendix,  No.  25. 

But  supposing  all  said  above  to  be  correct;  it 
will  still  be  asked — Are  these  articles  so  perfect, 
that  there  can  be  no  possible  improvement  on  them.-^ 
If  tliis  be  not  so,  are  they  to  remain  for  ever,  with 
known  and  acknowledged  imperfection.^  And  if  this 
be  not  contended  for,  what  are  the  circumstances 
which  will  render  the  altering  of  them  an  expedient 


240 

measure?  To  these  questions  it  is  answered,  not 
without  the  answerer's  distrust  of  his  own  judgment; 
first,  that  in  a  few  instances,  the  doctrines  of  the 
Gospel  may  be  expressed  more  satisfactorily  to  his 
mind;  that  therefore,  in  the  next  place,  he  does  not 
arrogate  to  them  perpetuity;  but  that  further,  before 
any  altering  of  them  be  attempted,  these  two  circum- 
stances should  concur — first,  a  better  establishment 
in  the  estimation  of  the  church  generally,  of  the  ec- 
clesiastical authority  in  her,  as  yet  a  modern  institu- 
tion :  and  how  much  this  must  depend  on  the  general 
opinion  entertained  of  the  piety,  the  learning,  and  the 
Hves  of  those  who  take  an  active  part  in  her  concerns, 
it  would  be  difficult  to  calculate;  as  also  what  prospect 
there  may  be  of  the  increase  of  the  measure  of  the 
good  which  we  may  have  among  us,  in  these  re- 
spects. The  other  circumstance,  as  declared  under 
a  former  head,  is  a  general  conviction  of  the  necessity 
of  committing  a  matter  of  this  sort  to  be  prepared  by 
a  few,  with  the  advantages  of  due  time  and  delibera- 
tion; what  is  so  prepared  to  be  laid  before  the  body; 
to  be  by  them  adopted  or  rejected,  without  discus- 
sion. 

These  sentiments  are  given,  under  a  sense  of 
responsibility  to  the  great  Head  of  the  church;  and 
under  the  conviction,  that  until  the  two  stated  cir- 
cumstances shall  combine,  a  new  code  of  articles 
will  have  the  effect  of  splitting  the  church  into  no 
one  knows  how  many  different  communions;  very 
much  to  the  hindrance  of  true  piety;  and  of  those 
characteristics  of  our  communion,  in  which  we  sup- 


241 

pose  it  to  ajiproach  nearer  than  others,  to  the  stan- 
dard ol'tlic  best  ages. 

In  this  convention,  tlie  question  of  recommending 
to  the  episcopacy  the  clergyman  elected  to  it,  as  re- 
lated under  the  head  of  the  last  preceding  convention, 
came  to  a  crisis.  The  church  in  New  Jersey  perse- 
vered in  the  election  of  him;  and  there  was  now  no 
longer  reason  to  hesitate,  for  want  of  a  sufficient 
number  of  incumbents:  because  the  question  of  fact 
had  been  referred  by  the  last  general  convention,  to 
the  convention  of  the  partic(dar  state  which  had  de- 
cided in  the  affirmative.  These  things  were  reported 
to  the  house  of  clerical  and  lay  deputies;  and  the  re- 
sult, was  a  direct  refusal  to  recommend.  The  inci- 
dent, although  given  in  the  journal,  should  not  be 
noticed  in  these  remarks;  were  it  not  to  record,  that 
tlie  extreme  dissatisfaction  conceived  by  a  few  gen- 
tlemen, was  prevented  from  ending  in  the  inconve 
niences  of  which  there  was  entertained  an  apprehen- 
sion, by  some  controversies  of  a  parochial  description. 
Until  these  took  place,  the  few  gentlemen  referred 
to  had  adopted  so  zealously  the  cause  of  the  rejected 
clergyman,  that  they  contemplated  an  application  to 
the  episcopal  church  in  Scotland.  This  would  cer- 
tainly have  failed:  but  the  project  was  communicated 
by  one  of  the  gentlemen  to  the  author.  The  bishop 
elect  a  few  years  afterwards  joined  the  presbyterian 
church,  probably  in  consequence  of  the  parochial 
controversies  referred  to;  which  had  also  arrested 
the  proceedings  in  his  favour  in  regard  to  the  epis- 
copacy. 

Hh 


242 


0.  Page  30.    Of  the  Cmvention  in  IS04!. 

Bishop  White  presided  in  the  house  of  bishops, 
and  Dr.  Beach  in  the  house  of  clerical  and  lay  depu- 
ties. The  secretaries  of  the  two  houses,  were  the 
Rev.  Cave  Jones  of  the  former  house,  and  the  Rev. 
John  H.  Hobart  of  the  latter. 

The  opening  sermon  was  by  bishop  Moore. 

There  needs  some  explanation  of  what  appears 
on  the  journal,  concerning  the  Rev.  Ammi  Rogers. 

He  was  a  native  of  Connecticut,  and  educated  at 
Yale  college.  During  the  episcopacy  of  bishop  Sea- 
bury,  interest  was  making  among  the  clergy,  to  pro- 
cure the  ordination  of  Rogers.  But  the  bishop  per- 
ceiving it,  and  in  consequence  of  an  unfavourable 
opinion  entertained,  declared  that  he  never  would 
ordain  him.  He  afterwards  went  into  the  back 
parts  of  the  state  of  New  York;  and  there,  by  efforts 
of  zeal  and  apparent  prospect  of  usefulness,  laid  the 
foundation  of  an  application  for  holy  orders,  to  bishop 
Provoost.  While  the  case  was  under  consideration, 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Beach,  having  heard  that  Rogers  had 
been  rejected  in  Connecticut,  made  objections.  On 
this,  he  repaired  to  that  state  with  the  view  of  pro- 
curing from  the  Rev.  Philo  Perry,  the  secretaiy  of 
the  convention  of  the  diocess,  a  certificate  that  there 
did  not  appear  on  the  minutes  any  entry  of  the  rejec- 
tion of  the  person  in  question.  Such  a  certificate 
might  have  been  given  with  great  truth,  because  no 


243 

formal  application  had  been  made.  But  Philo  Perry 
being  from  home,  Ammi  Rogers  fabricated  a  certifi- 
cate in  his  name;  not  only  testifying  to  the  said  fact, 
but  going  to  the  point  of  the  correct  life  and  conver- 
sation of  the  bearer.  The  last  circumstance,  is  of 
importance;  because,  although  a  certificate  as  to  his 
not  having  applied  for  and  been  refused  orders,  was 
obtained  from  Philo  Perry  afterwards,  yet  it  went  no 
further. 

With  the  certificate  forged  as  above,  Ammi  Ro- 
gers waited  on  Dr.  Beach;  and  after  thus  satisfying 
him,  requested  permission  to  have  the  certificate  in 
his  possession  for  a  while;  in  order  to  communicate 
it  to  some  friends  in  New  York,  who  had  heard  the 
stoiy  against  him.  This  was  assented  to.  The  cer- 
tificate was  never  returned:  but  in  the  mean  time, 
Dr.  Beach,  relying  on  the  integrity  of  it,  withdrew 
his  opposition,  and  Ammi  Rogers  was  ordained. 

In  a  few  years  after  his  ordination,  he  returned 
to  his  native  state,  and  made  himself  popular  at 
Stamford.  The  bishop  and  the  clergy,  refused  to 
know  him  as  belonging  to  the  diocess:  and  it  was 
this  which  brought  before  the  house  of  bishops,  by 
mutual  consent,  the  question  to  which  diocess  he 
belonged. 

In  the  investigation  of  this  question,  not  only  was 
the  preceding  fact  proved  by  unquestionable  testi- 
mony, especially  the  affidavit  of  Dr.  Beach;  but  the 
clerical  deputies  from  Connecticut,  while  they  treated 
the  man  with  the  utmost  decorum,  produced  ample 
evidence  of  a  factious  and  mischievous  disposition  in 


244 

him.  Still,  the  utmost  length  to  which  the  bishops 
at  finst  thought  themselves  warranted  to  go,  was,  in 
giving  their  opinion  on  the  case  submitted  to  them, 
to  notice  incidentally  the  iniquity  which  had  come 
within  their  knowledge,  in  the  investigation  of  the 
subject.  Here  they  should  have  stopped.  But  unfor- 
tunately, one  of  the  bishops  having  proposed  that 
there  should  be  included  a  recommendation  to  de- 
grade the  man  from  the  ministry;  the  others,  under 
the  sensibility  excited  by  the  evidence  of  his  great 
un worthiness  and  his  flagitious  conduct,  consented 
to  the  proposal.  This  was  ill  judged,  for  these  two 
reasons:  first,  it  would  give  room,  in  the  event  of 
a  condemnation,  to  object,  that  the  opinion  of  the 
bishops,  extra-JLidici ally  expressed,  had  obtained  un- 
due influence  over  the  minds  of  those  who  were  more 
properly  the  ecclesiastical  judges  of  the  offender. 
Perhaps,  the  same  objection  may  seem  to  lie  against 
the  noticing  of  the  forgery.  But  this  was  too  glaring 
a  fact  to  be  denied,  and  indeed  was  admitted;  while, 
on  a  succeeding  trial,  there  would  have  still  been 
a  latitude  as  to  the  degree  of  punishment  to  be  in- 
flicted. The  pointing  to  what  this  should  be  occa- 
sioned the  other  reason  referred  to,  by  contributing 
to  what  is  here  thought  to  be  the  error  into  which 
the  bishop  and  the  clergy  of  Connecticut  subsequently 
fell,  of  supposing  that  Anjmi  Rogers  had  been  tried 
by  the  house  of  bishops.  This  they  never  contem- 
plated, and  indeed  would  have  been  contrary  to  the 
ecclesiastical  constitution. 


245 

The  recording  of  this  tiansaction,  may  be  a  cau- 
tion against  giving  way  in  convention  in  future,  to 
solicitations  which  will  probably  be  occasionally 
niado,  for  the  obtaining  of  determinations  on  points 
personally  and  locally  interesting;  but  which  may  be 
left,  without  the  endangering  of  any  principle,  to  the 
judicial  authority  of  the  church  in  each  state.  That 
this  is  the  most  agreeable  to  the  ecclesiastical  con- 
stitution, will  not  be  denied.  If  the  said  instrument 
be  not  wisely  contrived  in  this  particular;  still  it 
should  govern,  until  altered  by  competent  authority. 
The  constitution,  however,  is  here  conceived  to  be 
not  liable  to  objection,  on  this  account:  and  it  is  sup- 
posed, that  a  contrary  provision  would  be  found  im- 
practicable; because  of  the  long  intervals  between 
the  meetings  of  the  general  conventions,  the  difficulty 
of  keeping  them  together,  and  other  circumstances 
which  might  be  mentioned. 

Alter  the  rising  of  the  convention,  this  business 
of  Ammi  Rogers  threatened  serious  consequences 
to  the  church  in  Connecticut,  owing  to  what  has 
been  already  hinted — its  having  been  there  con- 
ceived, that  he  had  been  tried;  and  that  nothing  re- 
mained, except  to  declare  him  degraded. 

IVhen  the  author  found,  that  what  the  bishops 
had  recorded  on  their  minutes  was  so  materially  mis- 
understood, he  wrote  to  bishop  Moore,  to  know  his 
sense  of  the  matter;  and  found,  from  a  letter  of  that 
bishop  still  in  possession,  that  there  was  a  perfect 
coinci  'eixe  of  opinion  between  them.  The  only 
bishop  besides,  who  had  been  present — bishop  Par- 


246 

ker — had  died  in  a  very  short  time  after  his  return 
to  Boston.  Bishop  Jarvis  had  absented  himself,  from 
a  motive  of  delicacy;  and  bishop  Claggett  had  left 
the  city  on  his  journey  home,  before  any  judgment 
had  been  delivered.* 

In  the  form  in  which  the  business  stands  on  the 
journal,  there  does  not  sufficiently  appear  the  ground, 
on  which  the  bishops  consented  to  give  their  senti- 
ments on  the  question,  as  to  the  jurisdiction  to  which 
Ammi  Rogers  belonged.  That  ground  was  in  the 
urgent  solicitations  of  both  the  parties;  which  were 
thought  to  justify  the  expression  of  opinion. 

The  author  supposes  it  due  to  the  nature  of  this 
work,  to  annex  to  it  the  judgment  of  the  bishops  in 
the  case  of  the  said  Ammi  Rogers.  Accordingly,  it 
is  in  the  Appendix,  No.  26. 

Notice  is  taken  on  the  journal  of  the  convention, 
of  an  application  from  the  episcopal  church  in  New 
Jersey,  relative  to  an  unhappy  dispute  there  subsist- 
ing between  a  minister  and  his  congi'egation.  As 
the  issue  of  this  was  a  canon,  the  object  of  which 
was  novel  in  the  episcopal  church,  and  the  conse- 
quences of  which  may  be  important;  it  may  be  pro- 

*  The  author  and  bisliop  Moore  afterwards  received  a  letter 
from  the  committee  of  the  clergy  in  Connecticut,  requesting  ad- 
vice on  the  question  of  again  taking  up  the  business  of  Rogers, 
and  granting  a  trial.  Both  of  those  applied  to  advised  the  mea- 
sure, but  it  did  not  take  place.  It  would  have  been  more  dis- 
creet in  them  to  have  witliheld  their  advice,  until  they  should 
have  known  that  it  would  have  effect. 


247 

per  to  record  tlie  origin  of  it,  and  tlie  general  viovv 
entertained  of  its  tendency  by  the  author. 

The  clergyman  in  contcnii)lation,  was  possessed 
of  apparent  zeal,  and  unexceptionable  in  his  moral 
conduct.  It  is  ditficult  to  ascertain,  how  far  these 
circumstances  should  extend  lenity  to  what  cannot 
in  itself  be  defended.  But  certain  it  is,  that  he  had 
manifested  a  leaning  to  practices  very  different  from 
those  of  his  church.  In  addition  to  this,  there  were 
complaints  of  his  overbearing  of  the  vestry,  and 
of  his  taking  ol'  all  authority  to  himself,  in  the 
management  of  the  temporal  concerns  of  the  con- 
gregation. That  from  dissatisfaction  with  him  they 
had  become  very  nmch  lessened,  was  affirmed  and 
believed.  The  former  of  the  objections  he  con- 
firmed, by  joining  another  religious  communion,  as 
soon  as  his  severance  from  his  particular  congrega- 
tion took  place. 

In  regard  to  the  merits  of  the  canon,  there  may 
be  doubts  concerning  the  principle,  on  the  ground 
that  there  should  be  no  severance  from  a  pastoral 
charge,  except  as  the  result  of  a  trial  for  alledged 
misconduct:  which  is  the  most  agreeable  to  the  idea 
of  exalting  law  above  will.  Besides,  there  is  evident 
danger,  that  when  a  clergyman  should  be  degraded, 
his  congregation  will  avail  themselves  of  this  canon, 
from  a  false  tenderness;  and  thus,  while  they  rid 
themselves  of  the  man,  send  him  to  disgrace  the 
church  elsewhere.  Nevertheless,  under  the  present 
circumstances  of  the  church,  and  until  some  check 
can  be  given  to  the  ease  with  which  ministers  are 


248 

admitted  into  congregations,  the  bishops  consented 
to  the  canon.  It  deserves  the  name  of  a  necessary, 
but — it  is  hoped — only  temporary  evil.  The  appre- 
hension of  the  abuse  of  it,  has  been  verified. 

There  appears  on  the  journal  to  have  been  some 
difference  of  opinion  between  the  houses,  in  refer- 
ence to  two  canons,  and  occasioning  a  conference 
proposed  by  the  house  of  bishops.  As  the  difference 
did  not  involve  any  important  principle,  and  as  it  was 
done  away  by  mutual  concession  in  the  conference, 
no  notice  is  taken  of  it  in  these  statements. 

It  was  in  this  convention,  that  the  house  of  bishops 
prescribed  the  course  of  ecclesiastical  study,  still  sub- 
sisting, for  students  in  theology.  This  was  doing 
something,  towards  the  improving  of  the  literary  re- 
putation of  our  ministry,  and  an  advance  towards  the 
desirable  object  of  a  seminary  or  seminaries,  in  which 
the  preparation  of  candidates  may  be  the  better  se- 
cured by  daily  examinations  held  by  qualified  pre- 
ceptors. 

At  this  convention  there  was  established,  as  pro- 
posed by  the  last,  a  change  of  the  season  of  holding 
the  conventions.  There  will  be  propriety  in  record- 
ing the  reason.  It  was  on  account  of  our  country's 
having  been  for  some  years  visited  by  epidemic  dis- 
ease, in  the  autumn. 

Agreeably  to  a  proposal  from  the  house  of  bishops, 
it  having  been  there  moved  by  bishop  Jarvis,  the  busi- 
ness of  the  convention  was  concluded  by  prayer,  per- 
formed by  the  presiding  bishop;  in  the  presence  of 
both  houses.   It  had  been  the  rule  during  every  con- 


249 

vention,  to  have  morning  prayer  in  the  liouse  of  cleri- 
cal and  lay  deputies,  at  which  the  bishops,  by  votes 
of  their  body,  had  attended. 

The  city  of  Baltimore  was  fixed  on  as  the  place 
of  the  next  convention,  to  be  held  on  the  third  Tues- 
day in  May,  1808. 


P.  Page  31.    Oftlie  Convention  o/  1808. 

Bishop  White  presided  in  the  house  of  bishops, 
and  Dr.  Beach  in  the  house  of  clerical  and  lay  depu- 
ties. The  secretaries  of  the  two  houses,  were  the 
Rev.  Dr.  James  Whitehead  of  the  former,  and  the 
Rev.  John  H.  Hobart  of  the  latter. 

Bishop  Parker,  who,  at  the  request  of  the  last 
convention,  was  to  have  opened  the  present  with  a 
sermon,  being  deceased,  that  office  was  discharged 
by  the  presiding  bishop. 

The  thin  attendance  on  this  convention,  must  at- 
tract the  notice  of  every  one,  who  shall  inspect  the 
journal.  In  the  house  of  clerical  and  lay  deputies, 
the  church  was  represented  from  seven  states  only: 
none  coming  from  Virginia;  on  the  account  of  the 
church  iu  which  state,  a  city  so  far  south  as  Bal- 
timore was  principally  chosen.  In  the  house  of 
bishops,  there  were  two  only — bishop  Claggett  and 
the  author.  When  the  latter  repaired  to  the  place 
of  meeting;  it  was  under  an  apprehension,  having 
learned  by  letter  from  the  other  his  being  exceed- 

I  i 


250 

ingly  indisposed,  that  the  question  would  be  raised 
— Whether  a  single  bishop  can  constitute  a  house. 
On  this,  he  was  prepared  to  sustain  the  affirmative, 
as  being  the  most  agreeable  to  the  letter  of"  the  con- 
stitution; and  because,  on  the  contrary  supposition, 
there  could  have  been  nothing  done.  The  case, 
however,  would  have  been  very  disagreeable.  It 
was  prevented  by  the  attendance  of  bishop  Claggett, 
although  with  a  considerable  degree  of  indisposition; 
under  which  he  laboured  during  the  whole  session. 
Bishop  Jarvis  was  said  to  be  indisposed  with  the 
asthma,  and  bishop  Moore  was  confined  by  an  in- 
flammation in  his  eyes.  Why  bishop  Madison  was 
absent,  was  not  known;  unless  he  were  prevented  by 
a  loss  sustained  of  a  son,  not  long  before. 

In  revising  and  arranging  the  canons,  there  oc- 
curred nothing  material,  besides  the  two  following 
particulars. 

One  of  them  respected  candidates  for  holy  or- 
ders. The  proposed  canon  prescribed  different  ex- 
aminations to  be  held,  during  the  time  in  which  a 
case  should  be  under  consideration:  and  among  the 
matters  to  be  inquired  into,  was  the  party's  being 
possessed  of  "  a  practical  knowledge  of  religion.' ' 
When  this  came  before  the  bishops,  they  could  form 
no  idea  of  practical  knowledge.  They  knew,  that 
in  the  other  house  it  had  been  consented  to  by  the 
majority,  in  order  to  get  rid  of  an  expression  pressed 
by  some — that  of  "  an  experimental  knowledge:"  an 
expression  much  abused  by  its  application  to  feehngs 
merely  animal,  and  unwelcome  on  that  account.  We 


251 

could,  however,  form  an  idea  of  the  sense  of  it  per- 
fectly unexceptionable;  supposing  it  to  be  such  know- 
ledge as  is  the  result  of  experience.  But  the  bishops 
did  not  perceive,  how  the  candidate  could  satisfy  his 
examiners  as  to  this  point,  on  any  other  evidence 
than  that  of  his  own  declarations;  the  requiring  of 
which  was  thought  liable  to  much  abuse.  Accord- 
ingly, they  proposed  to  leave  out  the  clause  concern- 
ing "  practical  knowledge;"  and  that  after  the  other 
requisitions,  there  should  be  inserted  an  admonition 
to  the  candidate,  of  there  being  required  in  him 
those  inward  graces,  which  cannot  be  brought  to 
any  outward  standard;  and  are  named  in  Scripture 
"  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit" — by  which  alone  his 
sacred  influence  can  be  "  known." 

In  addition  to  this,  the  bishops  sent  to  the  other 
house  a  paper,  of  which  the  following  is  a  copy,  to 
be  read  to  them  but  not  entered  on  their  journal;  in 
the  printing  of  which,  it  accordingly  does  not  appear, 
and  is  therefore  inserted  in  this  place. 

"  Having  proposed  the  omission  of  an  expression 
which  seems  designed  to  require  inward  piety,  we 
wish  to  be  clearly  understood  in  this  matter. 

"  Far  be  it  from  us  to  suppose,  that  any  qualifi- 
cations are  sufficient,  without  pious  affections,  the 
effects  of  the  grace  of  God  on  the  heart.  But  al- 
though the  living  piously,  that  is  in  a  visible  profes- 
sion and  in  the  duties  attached  to  it,  may  be  certified; 
yet,  the  actual  possession  of  piety  must  be  the  sub- 
ject of  the  experience  of  the  party,  and  not  of  the 
testimony  of  his  fellow-men.    If  it  should  be  thought. 


252 

that  they  may  ascertain  his  experience  by  an  inquiry 
into  the  movements  of  his  mind;  we  remark,  that  the 
issue  must  be  precarious,  independently  on  some 
manifest  abuses  incident  to  it. 

"  The  church  of  England,  has  always  contented 
herself  with  a  visible  profession,  a  suitable  life,  and 
the  solemn  declarations  at  the  altar.  That  in  these, 
there  may  be  imposition  and  insincerity,  is  unques- 
tionable. But  how  they  would  have  been  prevented 
by  further  requisition,  we  do  not  discern.  We  re- 
collect within  that  church  many  wise  and  holy  men, 
who  have  been  satisfied  with  her  discipline  in  this 
particular.  But  we  doubt  of  there  having  been  any 
dissentients,  whose  opinions  we  would  wish  to  see 
influential  in  this  church.  We  call  to  mind  a  certain 
period  in  the  history  of  England;  when  one  effect  of 
the  entire  prostration  of  her  church,  was  the  triumph 
of  the  principle  here  objected  to.  But  we  have  learn- 
ed too  much  of  the  consequent  hypocrisy  and  tyranny, 
to  be  reconciled  to  any  thing  which  bids  fair  to  lead 
to  the  same  result. 

"  In  America,  a  question  raised  on  the  same 
ground,  divided  for  some  time  a  numerous  and  re- 
spectable body  of  Christians.  But  in  consequence 
of  more  mature  reflection  among  them,  the  contro- 
versy has  been  dying  away;  and,  we  believe,  that 
there  is  now  very  little  of  it. 

"  But  what  in  our  opinion  should  over-rule  all 
doubt,  is  not  only  the  scheme  of  Scripture  generally, 
as  to  the  requisition  in  question;  but  that  St.  Paul,  in 
his  first  epistle  to  Timothy,  where  he  lays  down  the 


253 

qualifications  of  the  Christian  ministry,  says  not  a 
word  of  any  kind  of  scrutiny,  which  can  he  satisfied 
only  hy  the  testimony  of  the  party,  concerning  him- 
self 

"  The  subject  being  important,  we  have  thought 
it  expedient  to  make  this  formal  profession  of  our 
opinion." 

^\'hen  the  alteration  of  the  proposed  canon  by 
the  bishops  came  into  the  house  of  clerical  and  lay 
deputies,  it  occasioned  a  warm  debate,  which  turned 
altogether  on  the  word  "known:"  the  word  "mani- 
fested" being  proposed  as  a  substitute,  by  those  who 
objected  to  the  other.  The  reason  was,  there  being 
some  in  the  convention  who  could  not  brook  its  being 
declared  in  a  canon,  that  a  man  could  no  otherwise 
know  the  presence  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  than  by  his 
fruits.  They  evidently  thought,  there  w^as  a  more 
immediate  communication  in  the  matter  at  issue;  al- 
though they  rested  their  objection  chiefly  on  the  sup- 
position, of  its  cutting  off  all  hope  from  a  dying  peni- 
tent; as  if  such  a  person  might  not  be  sensible  of  new 
affections,  which  the  Spirit  only  can  produce:  what- 
ever difference  there  may  be  between  him  and  a  holy 
liver,  as  to  the  certainty  of  those  around  him  con- 
cerning the  existence  of  such  affections.  Some, 
without  deciding  on  which  side  the  truth  lay,  remon- 
strated against  the  establishing  by  a  side-blow,  of 
what  they  called  a  controverted  point.  In  the  issue, 
the  amendment  of  the  bishops  was  accepted,  but 
much  to  the  dissatisfaction  of  the  dissentients;  who 
even  talked  of  entering  a  protest.    After  the  business 


254 

of  the  day,  two  respectable  clergymen,  who  had  ar- 
gued and  voted  in  the  majority,  privately  recom- 
mended to  the  consideration  of  the  two  bishops — 
whether  it  w^ould  not  be  best  for  them  to  propose  the 
change  of  " known"  for  "manifested;"  this  word  not 
being  opposed  to  their  belief,  although  not  so  pre- 
cisely suited  to  the  sentiment  intended  to  be  con- 
veyed.    Their  motive,   was   the  expectation  until 
now  entertained,  that  the  convention  would  close 
the  next  day,  with  a  conciliatory  spirit  on  all  sides: 
which  expectation  would   be  disappointed,  if  the 
recommended  measure  should  be  rejected.     The 
bishops,  influenced  by  the  same  motive,  comphed 
with  the  proposal.     But  when  the  alteration  came 
into  the  other  house,  there  again  arose  a  warm  de- 
bate; a  considerable  proportion  arguing  against  the 
acceptance  of  the  revision.     However,  the  more 
moderate  counsel  prevailed;  but  whether  to  any  good 
purpose,  can  be  known  only  by  future  events.    The 
transaction  is  recorded  under  the  mortifying  reflec- 
tion, that  there  has  been  an  interference  in  the 
counsels  of  this  church,  of  the  wild  and  pernicious 
opinion  manifested  in  this  argument. 

After  the  session  was  ended,  in  company  with  a 
member  who  had  distinguished  himself  in  the  mi- 
nority, the  author  remarked  to  him,  that  in  the  insti- 
tutions of  the  episcopal  church,  there  was  nothing 
like  the  opinion  which  he  seemed  to  entertain.  He 
defended  himself  by  the  seventeenth  article,  where 
it  speaks  of  election  in  Christ,  as  "  full  of  sweet, 
pleasant  and  unspeakable  comfort  to  godly  persons. 


255 

and  such  as  feel  in  themselves  the  working  of  the 
Spirit  of  Christ,  mortifying  the  works  of  the  flesh 
and  their  earthly  members,  and  drawing  up  their 
mind  to  high  and  heavenly  things:"  words  evidently 
harmonizing  with  the  position,  that  "by  the  fruits  of 
the  Spirit  only  his  holy  influence  can  be  knovm," 
Should  such  reasoners  obtain  the  sway  in  the  coun- 
sels of  this  church,  her  system  will  be  overturned. 

The  other  matter  relative  to  the  canons,  was 
what  occurred  concerning  the  office  of  induction, 
established  at  the  last  convention.  It  is  to  be  hoped, 
that  the  consequences  of  the  measure  will  be  an  il- 
lustration of  the  maxim,  that  "  the  art  of  governing 
consists,  in  a  great  measure,  in  not  governing  too 
much."  No  objection  had  been  made  to  the  office: 
but  the  requiring  of  induction  as  essential  to  a  vahd 
settlement,  was  evidently  perceived  to  militate  against 
the  ideas  so  prevalent  in  many  places,  of  dismissing 
ministers  at  pleasure.  Now  although  there  can 
hardly  be  any  principle,  more  evidently  hostile  to  the 
permanent  respectability  of  the  ministry-;  yet  it  would 
have  been  better  to  have  left  the  correction  of  it  to 
time  and  attendant  inconveniences,  than  to  have 
brought  the  full  force  of  it  into  operation  by  the 
measure  now  in  question.  Certainly  it  would  have 
been  best,  to  have  rested  the  service  on  a  recom- 
mendatory rubric.  In  Maryland,  the  measure  inter- 
fered directly  with  the  vestry-law.  From  Carohna, 
there  was  a  memorial,  desiring  an  alteration  of  the 
canon.  And  in  other  places,  complaints  were  known 
to  have  been  made.    On  the  other  hand,  the  service 


256 

and  the  result  of  it  were  with  great  reason  so  ac- 
ceptable to  some,  that  they  refused  to  concur  in  do- 
ing away  the  former  measure;  but  consented  to  the 
dispensing  with  it  in  those  states  or  diocesses,  in 
which  it  interfered  with  charters  or  usages.  In  this 
shape,  the  matter  was  brought  before  the  bishops; 
who  were  reluctant  to  the  saying  of  any  thing,  liable 
to  be  construed  into  an  approbation  of  charters  or 
usages,  which  they  hold  to  be  contrary  to  good  order 
in  the  church.  Still,  the  consequences  of  rejecting 
the  canon  were  so  stated  to  them,  as  to  induce  on 
their  part  the  consenting  to  it;  with  a  subjoined  de- 
claration, that  it  should  not  be  construed  as  giving  a 
sanction  to  the  charters  and  the  usages  in  contem- 
plation; concerning  which  they  also  expressed  the 
hope,  that  they  will  in  time  be  altered.  This  amend- 
ment was  accepted,  and  the  canon  passed. 

A  new  arrangement  of  the  canons  made  by  this 
convention,  had  been  pressed  on  every  preceding  oc- 
casion, and  objected  to  by  the  author;  who  at  last 
withdrew  his  opposition,  submitting  to  the  alleged 
advantage,  of  having  all  the  provisions  pertaining  to 
the  same  subject  classed  together.  It  is  to  be  hoped, 
that  the  course  of  conduct  will  end  here,  at  least  for 
a  considerable  time;  or  else,  in  the  different  diocesses, 
it  will  be  to  no  purpose  to  refer  to  any  particular 
canon,  because  of  the  uncertainty,  whether  it  will 
retain  its  station  after  the  next  triennial  convention. 
It  will  be  much  more  convenient,  to  exhibit  the 
canons  of  each  conventional  body  as  their  act;  and 
in  every  edition  of  the  canons,  to  retain  the  titles  of 


257 

such  as  are  repealed,  printing  the  titles  in  italics.  A 
repeal  will  be  tlie  result  of  the  considerable  improve- 
ment of"  a  former  canon.  But  it  was  obligatory  in  its 
old  form,  while  it  remained  in  force;  and  may  still 
require  to  be  referred  to,  on  some  question  con- 
nected with  discipline.  The  title  will  direct  to  the 
journal;  which  will  show  how  the  canon  stood,  at  the 
time  to  which  it  is  desirable  to  apply  it. 

The  journal  shows,  that  there  was  accomplished 
at  this  convention,  what  has  been  from  the  beginning 
ardently  desired  by  many,  both  of  the  clergy  and  of 
the  laity — the  giving  of  a  full  negative  to  the  house 
of  bishops.     It  is  to  be  hoped,  that  the  recollection 
of  the  course  of  this  business,  as  tbund  on  the  vari- 
ous journals,  will  show  the  propriety  of  leaving  to 
time  and  mature  reflection,  to  effect  what  may  be  for 
a  while  opposed  by  prejudices,  not  to  be  disregarded 
without  extreme  danger.     What  is  here  said,  how- 
ever, is  designed  of  those  prejudices  only,  which 
may  be  yielded  to  without  the  sacrifice  of  essential 
principle.   This  was  the  case  in  the  present  instance; 
and  must  have  been  perceived  to  be  such,  even  by 
those  who  conceive  the  highest  of  episcopal  claims. 
In  the  year  178.5,  even  the  necessity  of  the  presi- 
dency of  a  bishop,  when  such  a  character  should  be 
obtained  by  consecration  and  should  be  present  in 
the  convention,  was  rejected.     Still,  nothing  was 
decreed  to  the  contrary;  and  in  the  next  year,  the 
absurd  prejudice   against   the  proposal  was  over- 
ruled.    When  another  constitution  was  formed  in 
1 789,  if  a  provision  for  the  episcopal  negative  had 
Kk 


258 

been  insisted  on,  it  would  have  been  destructive  of 
the  whole  system.  Nevertheless,  in  the  many  years 
intervening,  no  measure  has  passed,  under  the  refu- 
sal of  the  episcopal  sanction.  Indeed,  it  may  be  a 
question,  whether,  had  things  remained  on  the  old 
footing  of  the  three  fifths,  made  necessary  to  carry 
any  resolution  contrary  to  the  opinion  of  the  house 
of  bishops,  the  weight  of  their  negative  would  not 
have  had  more  effect,  than  under  the  present  change. 
This  would  have  happened  in  the  following  manner. 
There  would  always  be  in  the  other  house  a  propor- 
tion, who  would  doubt  of  the  validity  of  a  measure, 
adopted  without  the  episcopal  sanction.  Some  of 
these  would  occasionally  differ  from  the  bishops,  on 
a  subject  under  consideration.  But  when  the  dis- 
sent of  the  bishops  should  have  been  declared,  those 
of  the  description  referred  to  would  have  thrown 
themselves  into  the  scale,  against  the  putting  of  the 
matter  to  the  test  of  the  three  fifths.  This  supposition 
has  been  verified,  in  a  transaction  which  took  place 
between  the  two  houses  of  the  convention  of  1804. 
It  is  evident  to  the  author's  mind,  that  owing  to  the 
causes  stated,  while  it  would  be  scarcely  possible 
ever  to  carry  a  measure  against  the  bishops,  there 
would  be  a  discouragement  of  even  that  free  discus- 
sion with  them,  which  may  be  expected  to  take  place 
sometimes,  under  their  present  full  possession  of  a 
negative. 

On  the  above  subject,  there  is  an  error  in  the 
journal,  respecting  the  votes  of  the  lay-gentlemen 
from  Pennsylvania.     It  is  there  said,  that  they  were 


259 

in  favour  of  the  resolution;  but  voted  in  the  negative, 
because  uninstructed  by  their  constituents.  The  de- 
claration of"  the  gentlemen  is,  that  they  declined  voting 
for  a  measure  of  which  they  approved;  because  it  did 
not  appear  from  the  journals  of  their  state  conven- 
tions, that  t}\e  projected  change  had  been  laid  before 
them,  as  the  constitution  has  prescribed.  Neither 
had  the  gentlemen  any  recollection,  that  this  was 
done.  The  author  is  persuaded,  that  the  matter  was 
notified  to  the  state  convention;  but  how  it  happened 
that  an  entry  was  omitted,  he  knows  not.* 

The  reason  of  the  bishops  for  post[X)ning  the 
consideration  of  the  degrees  of  consanguinity  and 
affinity  prohibiting  marriage,  was  simply  as  stated 
on  the  journal — the  w  eight  of  the  subject,  and  the 
partial  attendance  at  this  convention.  They  did  not 
compare  their  sentiments,  on  the  many  important 
points  which  the  subject  brings  into  view. 

The  last  subject,  had  been  brought  forwards,  in 
consequence  of  an  instruction  from  the  church  of 
Maryland,  to  the  deputies  from  that  state.  From  the 
same  quarter  there  was  a  proposal  made,  to  intro- 
duce "  A  Companion  to  the  Altar,^^  as  part  of  the 
Prayer  Book.     The  reason  of  the  rejection  of  the 

*  It  would  Iiave  been  well,  had  the.  subject  recurred  so  as  to 
be  brought  before  the  convention  of  1811,  to  cause  notice  to  have 
been  given  on  the  journal  of  that  year.  But  the  fact  is  as  here 
related:  and  the  gentlemen  concerned  were  a  little  pained,  by 
the  misstatement  on  the  preceding  journal;  although  doubtless 
occasioned  by  misapprehension  or  by  inadvertence. 


260 

proposal  by  the  bishops,  was  its  tending  to  make  the 
book  bulky.  Many  good  treatises,  may  be  usefully 
bound  up  with  the  Prayer  Book:  but  to  make  them 
essential  parts  of  it,  would  be  manifestly  productive 
of  much  inconvenience.  Any  printer  may,  at  his 
discretion,  do  what  was  sohcited  on  this  subject, 
although  he  may  not  notice  the  Companion  to  the 
Altar  in  the  table  of  contents  of  the  Book  of  Com- 
mon Prayer. 

It  appears  from  the  journal,  that  the  conven- 
tion has  endeavoured — and  with  propriety  as  is  here 
conceived — to  give  a  check  to .  the  growing  prac- 
tice of  instituting  associated  rectorships.  They  de- 
stroy responsibility,  and  give  occasion  to  rivalships 
between  pastors  of  the  same  parochial  church  or 
churches.  It  is  argued  in  favour  of  episcopacy,  that 
independently  on  any  arguments  from  divine  institu- 
tion or  from  apostolic  practice,  it  has  a  better  ten- 
dency than  presbytery  to  peace  and  order.  The  last 
argument,  seems  to  apply  with  more  weight  to  a  con- 
gregational, than  even  to  a  diocesan.  So  far  as  the 
former  connexion,  in  other  denominations,  has  been 
known  in  any  considerable  degree  to  the  writer  of 
these  remarks,  it  has  been  generally  an  illustration 
of  the  opinion  here  expressed.  He  recollects  read- 
ing in  the  works  of  the  celebrated  Richard  Baxter, 
that  during  the  prostration  of  episcopacy  in  England, 
the  pressing  instances  of  that  good  man — for  such 
he  is  here  conceived  to  have  been — for  the  increas- 
ing of  the  number  of  pastors  in  the  churches,  were 
defeated  by  the  experience  of  the  jealousies  con- 


261 

stantly  occurring,  where  more  than  one  pastor  was 
settled  in  any  church.  This  is  in  a  work  called,  The 
Reformed  Pastor,  abridged  by  S.  Palmer,  part  2, 
chap.  9. 

At  this  convention,  the  bishops  were  again  assail- 
ed by  the  troublesome  business  of  Ammi  Rogers; 
who  allccted  to  bring  before  them  an  appeal  from 
the  judgment  of  bishop  Jarvis  and  the  clergy  of  Con- 
necticut. There  was  no  doubt  on  the  minds  of  the 
two  bishops  present,  that  there  had  been  an  oversight 
in  not  granting  to  this  man  a  trial,  in  the  church  in 
that  state.  But  the  oversight,  if  they  were  correct 
in  supposing  one,  was  not  theirs;  nor  was  it  in  their 
power  to  correct  it.  Nothing  could  have  been  easier, 
than  the  convicting  of  him  of  faults,  which  deserve 
degradation.  But  it  did  not  become  the  bishops  to 
advise  the  recalling  of  the  act,  and  the  giving  of  him 
a  trial.  There  was  the  less  call  on  the  author  to  do 
so,  because  he  had  already  advised  this  very  measure, 
as  did  also  bishop  Moore;  on  an  application  made 
for  their  opinions  on  the  subject,  by  the  standing 
committee  of  the  church  in  Connecticut.  But  al- 
though their  opinions  had  been  asked  and  given, 
there  occurred  insuperable  difficulty  in  the  seeking 
of  a  compliance  with  them.  The  bishops  had  no 
conference  with  Rogers;  nor  would  they  have  no- 
ticed his  business,  had  he  not  employed  a  gentleman 
of  reputation  in  the  law,  to  whom  something  was  due 
on  the  score  of  politeness  and  respect.  They  spent 
a  whole  morning  in  discussing  the  matter  with  this 
gentleman;  but  persisted  in  declining  to  hear  his 


262 

pleadings,  because  not  eompetent  to  decide.  The 
grounds  of  the  treatment  of  Rogers,  by  the  house  of 
bishops,  at  the  last  convention  and  at  the  present, 
were  accurately  recorded  on  the  journals.  The 
other  house  properly  refused  to  intermeddle;  and 
the  only  reason  of  the  papers  being  sent  to  them  by 
the  bishops,  was  their  being  addressed  to  both. 

On  the  subject  of  the  Hymns  sanctioned  by  this 
convention,  much  was  said,  as  well  out  of  doors,  as 
in  the  house  of  clerical  and  lay  deputies.  Some 
members  of  that  body,  had  contemplated  the  matter 
previously  to  the  meeting,  and  had  pressed  it  with 
great  earnestness.  The  author  of  these  remarks 
acknowledges,  that  it  was  with  pain  he  saw  the  sub- 
ject brought  forwards.  This  was  not  because  he 
doubted  either  of  the  lawfulness  of  celebrating  the 
praises  of  God  in  other  strains  than  those  of  David, 
or  of  the  expediency  of  having  a  few  well  selected 
hymns  for  the  especial  subjects  of  the  evangelical 
economy;  which  can  no  otherwise  be  celebrated  in 
the  psalms,  than  in  an  accommodated  sense.  Never- 
theless, there  is  so  little  of  good  poetry  except  the 
scriptural,  on  sacred  subjects;  and  there  W'as  so  great 
danger  of  having  a  selection  accommodated  to  the 
degree  of  animal  sensibility,  affected  by  those  who 
were  the  most  zealous  in  the  measure;  that  the  dis- 
cretion of  adopting  it  seemed  questionable.  It  was, 
however,  yielded  to  by  the  bishops,  under  the  hope, 
that  the  selection  of  a  few  and  those  unexception- 
able, although  some  of  them,  perhaps,  are  not  to  be 
extolled  for  the  excellence  either  of  the  sentiments 


263 

or  of  the  poetry,  might  prevent  the  unauthorized  use 
of  compositions  which  no  rational  Christian  can  ap- 
prove of.  The  matter,  however,  was  executed  with 
too  much  haste.  The  bishops  had  merely  time  to 
give  a  cursory  reading  to  the  hymns  proposed;  the 
result  of  which  was  the  acceptance  of  them,  with 
the  exception  of  one  hymn,  containing  a  verse  that 
seemed  a  little  enthusiastic.  In  lieu  of  this,  they 
proposed  another  hymn,  which  was  admitted.  They 
who  were  the  most  zealous  for  the  measure,  had 
pressed  for  the  admission  of  about  two  hundred. 

On  the  subject  of  hymns,  there  is  ground  for 
considerable  apprehensions.  Some  ministers,  and 
other  members  of  this  church,  have  so  strong  an  in- 
clination to  multiply  them,  that,  whatever  might  be 
in  future  the  number  of  those  allowed,  there  would 
be  at  every  convention  a  wish  for  more.  Others,  are 
aware  of  the  inconvenience  of  this  continual  enlarge- 
ment, but  press  for  the  setting  aside  of  some  of  those 
selected,  in  order  to  introduce  new  ones  more  suited 
to  their  taste:  not  foreseeing,  that  on  the  same  prin- 
ciple, there  will  be,  in  the  next  convention,  new  pro- 
posers of  new  hymns,  and  that  this  will  happen  with- 
out end.  There  are  some  religious  societies,  who 
think  it  ungodly  to  introduce,  into  the  worship  of  the 
sanctuary,  any  other  singing  than  that  of  the  Psalms 
of  David.  This  is  unreasonable:  but  are  we  not  run- 
ning into  the  opposite  extreme.^ 

The  principles  which  prevail  in  the  estimation  of 
the  author,  and  which  he  proposes  under  subjection 
to  the  saying — "  valeant  quantum  possunt  valere^^ — 


264 

that  is,  let  them  pass  for  what  they  are  worth — are 
these. 

In  regard  to  the  general  subjects  of  psalmody, 
as  the  attributes  of  God,  the  mercies  of  creation  and 
of  providence,  and  what  comes  under  the  character 
of  preceptive,  or  under  that  of  devout  desire  and  pi- 
ous purpose,  he  knows  of  no  other  compositions 
which  have  proved  equally  interesting  to  his  mind: 
and  without  making  his  feelings  a  test  of  those  of 
other  persons,  he  cannot  forget,  that  these  composi- 
tions were  the  liturgy  of  the  Jev\ish  church,  when  its 
devotions  Vv^ere  joined  in  by  the  divine  Author  of  our 
religion.  It  is  no  small  argument  in  favour  of  the 
heavenly  origin  of  the  Old  Testament,  that  strains  of 
devotion,  so  far  excelling  whatever  the  world  knows 
of  prayer  practised  by  the  wisest  men  among  the 
heathen,  should  adorn  the  worship  of  a  people  far 
below  some  other  nations  in  the  cultivation  of  the 
human  intellect.  It  should  be  added,  that  there  is 
no  small  proportion  of  the  Psalms,  so  evidently  point- 
ing to  the  Messiah  and  his  spiritual  kingdom,  as  only 
to  require  acquaintance  with  the  contents  of  the  New 
Testament,  in  order  to  their  being  accommodated  to 
the  celebration  of  the  mercies  of  redemption. 

Nevertheless,  as  it  is  by  the  Gospel  tliat  "  Life 
and  immortality  are  brought  to  light;"  there  would 
seem  to  be  a  suitableness  to  its  high  design,  in  cele- 
brating its  prominent  subjects  in  definite  terms:  so 
that  the  nativity,  the  crucifixion,  the  resurrection, 
the  ascension,  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  at  pen- 
tecost,  and  other  edifying  events,  embodied  with 


265 

Cliristian  doctrine  and  essential  to  it,  may  reasonably 
be  rendered  the  more  inijiressivc,  by  their  being  car- 
ried to  the  heart  on  the  wings  of  poetry  and  of 
music. 

It  is  not  intended  to  allege,  that  we  are  to  stop 
here.  But  there  is  no  hesitation  to  confess,  that  ad- 
ditions, if  made,  should  be  with  a  sparing  hand;  and 
tlien  only  admitted,  when  besides  sound  doctrine  and 
weighty  sense,  the  composition  be  such,  as  a  poet 
of  acknowledged  genius  would  not  be  ashamed  to 
own. 

As  to  the  loading  of  our  book  with  the  same 
truths  in  a  diversity  of  language  and  of  metre,  or, 
in  any  other  way,  the  seeking  of  variety  for  its  own 
sake,  there  is  pleasure  in  recording  the  opinion,  tliat 
it  will  never  tend  to  the  sustaining  either  of  truth  or 
of  devotion.  When  devout  feelings  have  often  ac- 
companied certain  words,  the  one  bring  the  other 
along  with  them,  by  the  law  of  association.  This 
should  be  no  hindrance  to  as  much  variety  as  is 
suited  to  the  diversity  of  subject;  yet  it  discounte- 
nances variety,  admitted  for  the  gratification  of  rest- 
less fancy.  As  to  that  species  of  hymns,  which  af- 
fects to  clothe  devout  desire  in  the  language  of  hu- 
man passion,  it  is  to  be  hoped,  that  we  shall  continue 
to  repel  every  effort  for  their  admission. 

One  effect  of  gratifying  the  passion  for  a  con- 
tinued addition  to  the  number  of  hymns,  and  for  ex- 
pressing the  same  sentiments  in  a  variety  of  forms, 
would  be  the  swelling  of  the  Prayer  Book  to  an  im- 
moderate size.     Again,  the  probable  effect  of  this. 

l1 


266 

would  be  the  sometimes  editing  of  the  book  without 
either  hymns  or  metre  psalms  under  the  same  cover; 
as  may  be  done  at  any  time  without  offence  against 
any  existing  regulation;  since  they  are  no  parts  of 
the  said  book,  but  make  a  book  by  themselves.  Ac- 
cordingly, selections  from  it  may  be  made  by  any 
parochial  minister,  at  his  discretion;  and  either  be 
bound  with  the  book  of  Common  Prayer,  or  kept 
in  a  separate  manual  for  the  use  of  his  congrega- 
tion, and  of  others  to  whom  it  may  be  eligible. 
Something  like  the  latter,  the  author  has  seen  in 
sundry  churches  in  England;  in  which  all  the  me- 
trical compositions  in  use  are  on  a  large  sheet  of 
pasteboard,  and  kept  hanging  in  the  pews. 

It  may  be  proper,  to  guard  the  above  from  being 
so  misconstrued,  as  to  be  a  sanction  for  the  publish- 
ing of  the  book  of  Common  Prayer,  with  the  omis- 
sion of  any  portion  of  it,  properly  coming  under  any 
head  of  the  table  of  contents.  This  was  done  in  a 
former  day,  by  an  omission  of  the  book  of  Psalms, 
and  an  insertion  of  the  selections  only:  which  unau- 
thorized act,  being  made  known  to  the  convention  of 
1801,  produced  the  canon  now  numbered  as  the  43d, 
"  Prescribing  the  mode  of  publishing  authorized 
editions  of  the  book  of  Common  Prayer,  &c.'^  But 
'^ The  Articles  of  Religion,"  and  "The  Ordinal," 
are  each  of  them  a  distinct  book,  although  resting 
on  the  same  authority;  so  that  ''The  book  of  Com- 
mon Prayer,"  with  or  without  them,  may  be  com- 
plete. 


267 

The  subject  of  hymns  has  so  evidently  a  bearing 
on  that  of  tiie  psahns,  that  it  will  not  be  irrelevant, 
and  will  be  justified  by  the  liberty  which  the  author 
stipulated  for  in  the  preface,  to  give  the  outlines  of 
his  theory  concerning  the  latter.  It  has  produced 
some  variety  of  opinion;  although  not  in  any  such 
extent,  as  to  endanger  the  peace  of  our  churches. 

In  the  primitive  church,  says  the  learned  Bing- 
ham, "  the  joining  of  all  the  worshippers  in  the  psal- 
mody, was  the  most  ancient  and  general  practice, 
till  the  way  of  alternate  psalmody  was  brought  into 
the  church."  May  eveiy  attempt  to  supercede  the 
former  by  an  exclusive  method,  prove  abortive. 

Is  there,  then,  to  be  interdicted  an  higher  grade 
of  musical  performance,  calling  for  acquirements  of 
more  study,  and  confined  to  the  select  members  of  a 
choir .'^  Far  from  us  be  the  opinion,  that  there  should 
be  wanting  any  matter  which  can  help  to  swell  the 
notes  ot  Christian  praise;  and,  that  all  improvement 
in  this  line  should  be  surrendered  to  mere  amuse- 
ment and  to  licentiousness:  but,  let  it  be  admitted  on 
the  indispensable  condition,  of  subserviency  to  the 
worship  of  him  who  so  framed  the  ear  as  to  be  de- 
lighted by  melody  and  by  harmony;  and  especially, 
rather  than  the  permission  of  a  contrariety  to  that 
end  in  sounds  characterized  by  levity,  let  it  be  kept 
at  a  distance  from  the  sacred  enclosure  of  the  house 
of  God.  The  same  reason,  applies  to  the  aid  of  in- 
struments. They  may  contribute  to  the  effect  of 
sentiment  and  of  voice:  but  when  there  are  emitted 
from  them  sounds  hostile  to  every  devout  desire, 


268 

there  is  no  person  impressed  by  a  serious  sense  of 
the  duties  of  the  place,  who  would  not  rather  see 
them  committed  to  the  flames. 

It  is  stated  by  bishop  Lowth,  in  his  dissertation 
prefixed  to  his  translation  of  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah, 
that  the  book  of  Psalms  was  originally  in  metre.  He 
considers  the  fact  as  proved  by  certain  parts  of  them, 
in  which  there  are  alphabetical  marks  of  the  begin- 
nings of  lines  and  of  stanzas.  To  the  same  purpose 
Josephus  affirms,  that  David  wrote  his  psalms  in 
trimeters  and  pentameters. 

This  metre  was  not  of  the  same  number  of  syl- 
lables, as  among  the  Greeks  and  the  Latins;  but,  to 
use  the  words  of  the  bishop,  "  that  relation  and  pro- 
portion of  one  verse  to  another,  which  arises  from 
the  correspondence  of  terms,  and  from  the  form  of 
construction;  from  whence  results  a  rythmus  of 
propositions,  and  a  harmony  of  sentences." 

The  pronunciation  of  the  Hebrew  language  had 
become  lost,  long  before  the  age  of  the  Gospel;  prin- 
cipally in  consequence  of  its  want  of  vowels:  so  that 
the  subsequent  invention  of  vowels  by  the  Masorets, 
has  never  recovered  the  pronunciation  with  cer- 
tainty. Hence,  the  original  metre  is  unknown:  and 
even  in  the  age  of  the  Gospel,  the  worship  of  the 
temple  was  with  the  psalms  in  the  prosaic  form. 

The  chanting  of  them  in  this  form,  will  for  ever 
claim  the  merit  of  their  having  been  so  sung,  in  the 
worship  attended  on  by  our  blessed  Savour  and  his 
apostles;  and  of  their  having  continued  to  be  so  sung 
in  the  primitive  church,  and  afterwards,  universally 


269 

until  the  reformation.  In  the  compiling  of  the  htur- 
gy  of  the  church  of  England,  no  metiical  singing 
was  contemplated:  so  that  when  Sternhold  and  Hop- 
kins made  their  version,  it  came  in  silently,  under  the 
general  license  to  sing  any  portion  of  Scripture.  To 
this  day  in  England,  it  is  only  under  the  cover  of  the 
said  permission,  that  either  the  said  version,  or  the 
more  poetic  vei'sion  of  Tate  and  Brady  shelters  it- 
self In  the  American  church,  the  latter  is  expressly 
sanctioned. 

How  can  the  sanction  be  reasonably  censured, 
as  treating  the  words  of  Scripture  irreverently.''  For 
tlie  singing  of  the  psalms  in  the  original,  none  con- 
tend: and  as  for  the  original  measure,  the  recovery 
of  it  is  given  up  as  desperate.  To  render  them  intel- 
ligible in  any  modern  language,  it  is  necessary  to  ac- 
commodate in  a  considerable  degree  to  the  genius  of 
it.  If  the  accommodation  be  a  little  extended  for  the 
making  of  poetic  measure,  it  cannot  be  unlawful  in 
its  principle,  provided  the  sense  be  faithfully  pre- 
served. The  same  license  is  often  taken  in  choral 
music;  it  being  common  to  make  transpositions  and 
other  alterations  of  the  words  of  anthems,  although 
not  for  the  purpose  of  tying  them  to  metre. 

But  the  license  pleaded  for  is  denounced,  as  a 
gratifying  of  sense;  and  there  is  an  opprobrium  at 
hand,  in  the  expression  of  a  tickhng  of  the  ear. 
What  is  the  use  of  any  poetry,  or  of  any  music,  but 
that  through  the  inlets  of  the  gratified  senses,  there 
may  be  an  excitement  of  devout  affections?  Were  it 
not  for  this  advantage,  it  were  better,  that  divine 


270 

truths  should  be  always  uttered,  in  the  plainness  of  a 
dress  suited  to  mathematics  or  to  metaphysics. 

It  has  been  remarked,  that  in  England,  metrical 
psalmody  has  been  instrumental  to  schism,  having 
been  always  the  most  esteemed  by  the  dissenters 
tr-om  the  established  church.  It  is  difficult  to  per- 
ceive either  the  relation  of  the  subjects,  or  the  evi- 
dence of  the  position.  In  regard  to  the  latter  it  is 
notorious,  that  metrical  singing  made  its  way  not 
only  to  the  parish  churches,  but  to  the  cathedrals, 
without  the  sanction  of  command,  or  even  of  espe- 
cial permission;  and  that  it  retains  its  stand  in  them, 
under  a  provision  which  had  it  not  in  contemplation. 
If  the  dissenters  have  not  manifested  the  same  re- 
gard for  an  higher  grade  of  singing,  it  should  be  re- 
membered, that  at  their  origin,  there  was  an  ideal 
association  of  this  with  other  matters;  that  it  has 
been  hereditary;  and  that  we  know  not  how  far  this 
may  have  been  the  result  of  another  association — 
meaning  of  the  subject  with  the  supposed  attribute 
of  levity:  for  which  too  much  cause  has  been  given 
in  faulty  performance. 

x\s  to  the  cliurches  of  the  establishment,  it  is  pro- 
bable that  there  is  not  one  of  them  in  which  metrical 
singing  is  not  practiced;  although  any  parochial  cler- 
gyman might  banish  it,  without  offence  against  any 
institution  of  his  church. 

The  gratifying  of  popular  taste  by  the  use  of 
metre,  has  been  urged  to  its  disgrace.  Now  to  sacri- 
fice truth  to  the  opinion  of  the  high  or  of  the  low, 
must  be  grievous  sin.     But  on  a  question  of  taste,  if 


271 

that  of  the  people  can  be  laid  hold  on  for  the  increase 
of  their  piety,  it  would  be  dillicult  to  prove  this  an 
error:  as  much  so,  as  to  do  the  like  in  reference  to 
the  improvement  of  a  talent  ibr  elocution,  with  the 
hope  of  rendering  it  instrumental  to  popular  edifica- 
tion. 

After  all,  it  must  be  acknowledged  of  our  metre, 
requiring  as  it  does  lines  answering  to  one  another 
in  the  numbers  of  their  syllables,  that  it  is  very  un- 
equal to  the  force  of  what  must  have  been  accom- 
plished by  Hebrew  verse,  as  described  by  bishop 
Lowth;  according  to  which,  each  line  contained  a 
complete  sense.  He  calls  the  lines  parallelisms:  and 
he  distinguishes  them  into — the  synonymous,  the  an- 
tithetic, and  the  synthetic  or  consecutive.  These 
names  are  descriptive  of  the  diversity;  and  the  ex- 
amples given  by  him  are  proof,  how  exceedingly  all 
our  translations  in  metre  fall  short  of  those  poems  in 
their  original  forms.* 

*  In  order  to  illustrate  the  sen«e  of  the  bishop  concerning 
parallelisms,  the  following  examples  are  given  from  among  those 
exhibited  by  him. 

The  Synonymous. 

"  Bow  thy  heavens,  O  Jehovah,  and  descend; 
"  Touch  the  mountains,  and  they  shall  smoke: 
"  Dart  forth  lightning,  and  scatter  themj 
"  Shoot  out  thine  arrows,  and  destroy  them." 

Ps.  cxliv.  5,  6. 
The  Antithetic. 

"  They  are  bowed  down,  and  fallen; 

"  But  we  are  risen,  and  maintain  ourselves  firm." 

Ps.  XX.  8. 


272 

As  to  what  is  commonly  called  rhyme,  in  which 
the  lines  answer  to  one  another,  not  only  in  the  number 
of  syllables,  but  in  sound  or  jingle;  if,  as  is  alleged, 
there  is  something  in  the  genius  of  the  English  lan- 
guage, rendering  such  an  artificial  construction,  pe- 
culiarly agreeable;  it  is  difficult  to  devise  any  prin- 
ciple on  which  it  should  be  interdicted.  And  yet,  the 
opinion  here  entertained  is,  that  the  most  to  be  claim- 
ed for  it  is  endurance,  until  there  shall  be  exhibited 
a  translation  stript  of  it,  and  in  other  respects  worthy 
of  adoption.  Certainly,  there  are  psalms  which  have 
never  been  put  into  this  chain,  nor  perhaps  into  that 
of  syllabic  measure,  without  material  deterioration. 

In  regard  both  to  metre  and  to  t*hyme  it  must  be 
confessed,  that  sometimes  by  the  throwing  in  of  a 
superfluous  word,  to  suit  that  species  of  translation, 
there  is  caused  a  considerable  departure  from  the  ori- 
ginal. Besides,  there  is  commonly  a  suspending  of  the 

"  For  his  wrath  is  but  for  a  moment,  his  favour  for  life; 
"  Sorrow  may  lodge  for  the  evening,  but  in  the  morning  glad- 
ness." Ps.  XXX.  5. 

Thf  Antithesis  is  in  each  of  the  lines.     Sometimes  it  com- 
prehends a  couplet,  each  line  having  a  complete  sense. 

The  Synthetic,  or  Consecutive. 
"  Whatsoever  Jehovah  pleaseth, 
"  That  doeth  he  in  the  heavens  and  in  the  earth; 
"  In  the  sea  and  in  all  the  deeps: 

"  Causing  the  vapours  to  ascend  from  the  ends  of  the  eartli; 
"  Making  the  light'nings  with  the  rain; 
"  Bringing  forth  the  wind  out  of  his  treasures." 

Ps.  cxxxv.  6,  7. 


2*^  r» 
/  ^ 

sense  of"  one  line  on  what  is  to  follow  in  another: 
which  is  contrary  to  the  exanriple  oi"  Hebrew  verse  * 
In  addition  to  all  this,  it  is  often  necessary  to  take 
in  so  much  of  what  has  been  suggested  by  the  brain 
of  the  modern  poet,  as  that  the  sentiment  of  inspira- 
tion is  diluted  in  the  exuberance  of  language,  and 
sustains  a  material  diminution  of  its  strength.f 

*  The  difterence  may  be  illustrated,  by  the  following  lines  from 
the  fourth  psalm.  In  the  first  line,  the  sense  is  suspended  for 
the  second:  and  in  the  third,  the  same  is  done,  in  a  dependence 
on  the  fourth,  a  disadvantage  sometimes  aggravated  by  an  ab- 
surd flourish  on  the  organ.  But  in  the  other  four  lines,  what  the 
bishop  calls  a  consecutive  parallelism  is  complete,  and  remarka- 
bly beautiful. 

3  "  Consider  that  the  righteous  man 
"  Is  God's  peculiar  choice, 

"  And  when  to  him  I  make  my  prayer, 
"  He  always  hears  my  voice." 

4  "  Then  stand  in  awe  of  his  commands, 
"  Flee  every  thing  that's  ill: 

"  Commune  in  private  with  your  hearts, 
"  And  bend  them  to  his  \vill." 

t  Tlie  two  following  examples  are  given  from  a  comparison  of 
the  bible  translation  with  that  of  the  book  in  metre.  The  lines 
of  the  latter  are  fine,  which  make  them  serve  the  better  for  in- 
stances of  the  extending  of  a  sentiment  over  too  large  a  surface. 

The  comparisons  to  be  made  are  not  intended  in  disparage- 
ment of  the  version  of  Tate  and  Brady:  for  whether  on  account 
of  its  merits,  or  from  the  influence  of  the  recollection  of  sensi- 
bilities, extending  as  far  back  as  any  recollections  extend,  there 
is  a  preference  of  it  to  every  other  of  the  kind.  Tlie  imperfec- 
tion charged  on  it,  is  common  to  all  the  metrical  translations. 

M  m 


274 

There  arises  the  question — What  is  the  hne  of 
conduct  to  be  pursued  in  this  church,  in  considera- 
tion of  the  premises?  The  answer  is,  first,  in  re- 
gard to  chants,  if  there  be  any  who  have  a  disrelish 
for  them,  let  such  persons  be  aware  of  the  high  sanc- 
tion under  which  they  have  come  down  to  us;  and 
on  that  account,  let  them  not  dare  to  make  an  effort 
for  the  excluding  of  them.*     Secondly,  in  regard  to 

Bible  Translation.     Ps.  cxiv.  1,  2. 

When  Israel  went  out  of  Egypt,  the  house  of  Jacob  from  a 
people  of  strange  language;  Judah  was  his  sanctuary,  and  Israel 
his  dominion." 

Book  in  Metre. 

"  When  Israel,  by  the  Almighty  led, 
"  Enrich'd  with  their  oppressor's  spoil, 
♦•  From  Egypt  march'd,  and  Jacob's  seed 
"  From  bondage  in  a  foreign  soil; 
"  Jehovah,  for  his  residence, 
"  Chose  out  imperial  Judah's  tent, 
"  His  mansion  royal,  and  from  thence, 
•'  Through  Israel's  camp  his  orders  sent." 

Bible  Translation.     Ps.  cxxxvii.  1. 

"  By  the  rivers  of  Babylon,  there  we  sat  down,  yea  we  wept, 
when  we  remembered  Zion." 

Book  in  Metre. 

"  When  we  our  weary  limbs  to  rest, 
"  Sat  down  by  pioud  Euphrates'  stream, 
"  We  wept,  with  doleful  tlioughts  opprest, 
"  And  Sion  was  our  mournful  theme." 
The  whole  of  these  two  psalms  are  an  illustration  to  the 
purpose. 

*  There  is  an  advantage  incidental  to  chants,  and  worthy  of 
notice:  it  is  the  exclusion  of  light  airs,  whicli,  tacked  to  the 


275 

psalms  in  metre,  rendered  by  habit  dear  to  many  de- 
vout minds;  and  there  being  in  the  use  of  them,  a 
readiness  to  the  desirable  object  of  a  general  joining 
of  the  people;  let  not  the  taste  for  a  species  of  sing- 
ing which  requires  more  of  science,  invade  the  ground 
on  which  they  stand.  And,  thirdly,  let  not  that  high 
grade  of  choral  praise  be  undistinguishingly  rejected 
by  those  who  have  no  fancy  for  it.  Rather  let  it  be 
encouraged  with  moderation;  under  the  condition 
rigorously  required,  not  only  of  there  being  nothing 
of  levity,  but  of  there  being  a  tendency  to  the  excite- 
ment of  devout  affections.  And  let  the  advocates  of 
it  be  aware  of  the  disgust,  which  will  and  ought  to 
be  excited  by  a  violation  of  this  condition;  and  of 
the  dissatisfaction  which  will  be  the  reasonable  result 
even  of  a  defect  of  skill  in  the  performance. 

It  is  probable  that  the  chants,  the  metre  psalms, 
and  the  choral  anthems,  might  all  be  profitably  laid 
aside,  in  the  event  of  an  approach  in  the  English 
language,  to  Hebrew  verse  as  above  described  by 

plain  words  of  Scnpture,  would  be  oftensive,  not  to  say  to  every 
pious,  but  to  every  decent  person.  There  are  some  religious 
people — it  is  surprising — who  would  introduce  into  metre  psalmo- 
dy, the  fashionable  tunes  of  festivity  and  sport.  The  reason  of- 
fered is — why  sliould  the  best  tunes  be  exclusively  tlie  property 
of  Satan?  Tlie  author  is  not  prepared  to  pass  such  a  judgment 
on  those  tunes;  which  are  not  sinful,  so  long  as  they  are  used 
within  the  bounds  of  innocency.  But  if  they  be  indeed  the 
property  of  the  aforesaid  personage,  let  us  be  just  even  to  him, 
and  permit  him  to  keep  his  own.  Rational  and  evangelical 
devotion  has  no  occasion  for  them,  however  suited  they  may  be 
to  the  extravagances  of  enthusiasm. 


276 

bishop  Lowth;  and  of  which  he  says  in  another 
part  of  his  dissertation,  that  the  harmony  of  it  arose 
"  from  accents,  tones,  and  musical  modulations."  But 
the  bishop  evidently  considered  this  as  unattainable 
even  in  the  Hebrew. 

On  a  retrospect  of  the  transactions  of  this  con- 
vention, there  is  entertained  the  trust,  that  it  did  not 
end  without  a  general  tendency  to  consolidate  the 
communion;  although,  in  the  course  of  the  business, 
there  had  been  displayed  more  than  in  any  other  con- 
vention, the  influence  of  some  notions  leading  far  wide 
of  that  rational  devotion,  which  this  church  has  in- 
herited from  the  church  of  England.  The  spirit 
here  complained  of,  was  rather  moderated  than  raised 
higher  during  the  session.  But  it  being  liable  to  be 
combined  with  schemes  of  personal  consequence; 
there  is  no  foreseeing,  to  what  lengths  it  may  extend  in 
future.  On  the  part  of  those  inimical  to  the  con- 
templated evil,  the  proper  preservative — and  may 
God  grant  that  it  may  be  applied — is  the  cultivating 
of  an  enlightened  zeal  in  favour  of  the  doctrines  of  our 
holy  religion,  as  revealed  in  Scripture;  and  hitherto 
maintained  in  their  integrity,  by  this  church.* 

Lest  what  is  said  concerning  schemes  of  personal  conse- 
quence should  bear  the  appearance  of  an  insinuation  not  to  be 
f-nstaiued  by  any  fact;  the  author  finds  himself  calle<l  on  to  spe- 
( ify  an  attempt  made  to  congregate  some  select  clergymen  in 
Baltimore,  at  the  time  of  the  general  conventiont  as  a  distinct 
body,  and  for  the  greater  increase  of  piety.  The  teiuieiicy  of 
*uch  a  scheme,  must  be  obvious.  Almost  all  of  the  invited 
t  lergymen  saw  the  matter  in  a  proper  point  of  view,  and  declined 
the  invitation.  The  consequence  was,  Ihat  the  project  came  to 
iKithins;. 


277 

Q.  p.  33.    Of  the  Convention  in  1811. 

Bishop  White  presided  in  the  house  of  bishops, 
and  the  reverend  Dr.  Wilkins  in  the  house  of  clerical 
and  lay  deputies.  The  secretaries  of  the  two  houses, 
were  the  Rev.  Philo  Shelton  of  the  former,  and  the 
Rev.  Ashbel  Baldwin  of  the  latter.  Bishop  Claggett, . 
who  was  to  have  opened  this  convention  with  a  ser- 
mon, being  detained  by  sickness,  that  office  was  per- 
formed by  the  presiding  bishop. 

This  convention  was  held  under  very  serious  and 
well  founded  apprehensions,  that  the  American 
church  would  be  again  subjected  to  the  necessity  of 
having  recourse  to  the  mother  church,  for  the  epis- 
copacy; or  else  of  continuing  it  without  requiring 
the  canonical  number;  which  might  be  productive 
of  great  disorder  in  future.  Bishop  Moore  had  been 
lately  visited  by  a  paralytic  stroke,  and  was  supposed 
to  be  incompetent  to  the  joining  in  a  consecration, 
unless  in  his  chamber:  which  was  contemplated  as 
the  last  resort.  Bishop  Claggett,  after  severe  indis- 
position, was  so  far  recovered  as  to  be  encouraged  to 
attempt  the  journey ;  but  after  proceeding  a  few  miles, 
found  himself  under  the  necessity  of  returning 
Bishop  Madison  thought  himself  not  at  liberty  to 
leave  the  duties  of  his  college*  The  author  left 
home,  under  the  hope  of  inducing  bishop  Provoost 
to  go  on  to  New  Haven;  although  he  had  never  per- 

*  It  appears  from  a  letter  of  bishop  Madison  to  the  author, 
that  these  t'uties  had  been  made  the  more  imperative  by  the 
solemnity  of  an  oath. 


278 

formed  any  ecclesiastical  duty,  since  the  consecra- 
tion of  bishop  Moore  in  1801.     But  besides  bishop 
Provoost's  being  under  the  effects  of  a  slight  stroke  of 
the  paralytic,  sustained  two  years  before;  he  was,  at 
this  time,  only  beginning  to  recover  from  the  jaun- 
dice.    He  found  himself  utterly  incompetent  to  the 
taking  of  a  journey;  but  promised,  if  possible,  to  as- 
sist in  a  consecration,  if  it  should  be  held  in  the  city 
of  New  York.     With  the  expectation  of  this,  bishop 
Jarvis,  after  the  rising  of  the  convention,  came  with 
the  author  to  the  said  city;  as  did  the  two  bishops 
elect.  To  the  last  hour,  there  w  as  danger  of  disappoint- 
ment. On  our  arrival,  a  day  also  having  been  public- 
ly notified  for  the  consecration,  we  found  that  bishop 
Provoost  had  suffered  a  relapse  during  our  absence. 
But  finally,  he  foimd  himself  strong  enough  to  give 
his  attendance;  and  thus,  the  business  was  happily 
accomplished. 

What  is  mentioned  on  the  journals,  in  relation  to 
the  introduction  of  episcopacy  into  the  western 
states,  arose  from  a  correspondence  which  had  been 
entered  into  between  the  author  and  the  Rev.  Joseph 
Doddridge,  who  had  been  ordained  by  him  many 
years  befoie;  and  who  lives  near  the  western  lioe 
of  Pennsylvania,  which  divides  it  from  Virginia. 
This  gentleman  wrote  in  behalf  of  himself,  and  of  a 
lew  other  clergymen  settled  in  those  western  regions. 
The  line  of  direction  given  to  this  business  by  the 
convention,  renders  it  premature  to  say  much  con- 
cerning it  at  present.  The  hindrances  to  the  car- 
rying of  the  design  of  the  preceding  general  conven- 


_^^Mi 


279 

tion  into  eflcct,  were  the  difliculty  of  selecting  a  suit- 
able person,  and  that  of  supporting  him.  The  same 
difficulties  are  to  be  apprehended,  in  the  new  shape 
of  the  business.  There  is  this  difference  in  the  two 
designs.  According  to  the  former,  the  bishop  would 
have  been  on  the  missionary  plan,  selected  and  paid 
on  this  side  of  the  mountains.  If  the  latter  idea 
should  be  realized;  the  churches  to  the  westward 
must  be  organized,  and  a  bishop  must  be  chosen  by 
themselves. 

It  appears  on  the  journal,  that  the  convention 
were  called  on  to  give  their  sanction  to  the  eiideav- 
ours  of  the  Episcopalians  in  Connecticut,  for  the 
establishment  of  an  Episcopal  academy  with  corpo- 
rate powers.  This  design,  originated  in  the  exclu- 
sive constitution  of  the  college  in  that  state,  which 
is  entirely  in  the  hands  of  congregationahsts;  and  is 
so  patronized  by  the  government,  and  so  supplied 
with  occasional  grants  of  money  from  the  treasury, 
as  is  thought  to  amount  to  a  species  of  state  estab- 
lishment of  a  particular  religious  denomination.  It 
is  considerably  owing  to  this  circumstance,  that  there 
is  a  degree  of  dissatisfaction  between  the  episcopa- 
lians and  the  dominant  society,  beyond  what  prevails 
in  any  other  state  in  the  union. 

The  application  to  the  society  (in  England)  for 
the  propagating  of  the  gospel,  originated  in  the  fol- 
lowing circumstances.  Before  the  revolution,  and 
when  the  state  now  known  by  the  name  of  Vermont 
was  considered  as  part  of  the  province  of  New 
Hampshire,  governor  Wentworth,  in  his  grants  of 


280 

the  western  lands  of  that  province,  laid  out  in  every 
township  a  tract  for  the  use  of  the  episcopal  church, 
which  should  in  future  be  within  the  Hmits  of  the 
township;  and  conveyed  the  lands  so  given  to  the  said 
society.  Some  of  these  lands  are  within  the  present 
bounds  of  New  Hampshire,  and  the  rest  are  in  Ver- 
mont. After  the  peace  of  1 783,  the  society  conveyed 
the  former  to  certain  gentlemen,  within  the  state  to 
which  they  belonged.  The  present  application,  for 
a  similar  grant  of  the  lands  in  Vermont,  was  with 
the  view  of  making  them  productive,  for  the  accom- 
plishing of  the  original  object  of  the  grants. 

It  appears  further  on  the  journal,  that  two  Rev. 
gentlemen,  Benjamin  Benham  and  Virgil  H.  Barber, 
made  to  the  convention  an  application,  the  purport 
of  which  is  not  recorded;  but  became  an  object  of 
attention  in  conversation,  during  and  after  the  session ; 
besides  its  occasioning  of  a  debate  at  the  time,  in 
the  house  of  clerical  and  lay  deputies.  The  subject 
is  contemplated  as  likely  to  be  a  cause  of  future  liti- 
gation, and  therefore  now  noticed  with  sorrow.  The 
object  of  the  two  gentlemen  alluded  to,  was  to  pro- 
cure a  declaration  of  the  invalidity  of  lay-baptism: 
and  they  were  said  to  be  conscientiously  scrupulous 
of  admitting  as  members  of  their  congregations,  per- 
sons who  had  received  no  other.*     This  of  course 

*  One  of  the  two  clergymen  (Mr.  Barber)  distinguisliing 
themselves  as  above,  a  few  years  after,  became  a  Roman  Catholic 
In  the  communion  thus  joined  by  him,  it  is  not  uncommon  for 
midwives  to  baptize.  It  is  a  well  known  property  of  extremes, 
that  they  are  often  seen  making  the  connecting  points  of  a  circle. 


L^81 

precluded  accessions,  except  on  the  condition  of  com- 
pliance with  their  proposal,  from  the  most  numerous 
denomination  in  the  state:  their  baptism  by  the  con- 
gregational ministers,  being  considered  as  performed 
by  laymen.  Although  the  clergymen  referred  to  were 
singulai*  in  carrying  the  matter  so  I'ar;  yet  there  has 
been  an  increasing  tendency  in  some  of  the  cleigy, 
to  administer  episcopal  baptism  to  such  as  desire  it, 
on  alleged  doubts  of  the  validity  of  former  baptism. 
Even  this  is  contrary  to  the  rubrics,  as  is  proved  by 
njany  judicious  divines  of  the  church  of  England. 
It  happened,  that  a  distinguished  lay-member  of  the 
convention — the   Hon.   Rufus   King — had  brought 
with  him  a  pamphlet  lately  sent  to  him  from  England; 
containing  a  judgment  recently  given  in  an  ecclesias- 
tical court  of  that  country,  in  a  case  precisely  to  the 
point.     It  was  occasioned  by  a  suit  brought  by  a 
dissenter  against  a  parish  minister,  for  refusing  to 
bury  a  child,  who  had  been  baptized  by  a  minister 
dissenting  from  the  establishment.      The  judge — 
sir  John  Nichols — decided  it  against  the  clergyman. 
His  reasons,  grounded   altogether  on   the   rubrics, 
must  carry  conviction  to  every  mind,  so  far  as  con- 
cerns the  question  of  the  sense  of  the  church  of 
England.     It  is  true,  that  this  does  not  settle  the 
question  of  the  sense  of  Scripture.      On  the  most 
serious  consideration  of  the  subject  many  years  ago, 
conviction  is  entertained,  that  the  holy  scriptures  and 
the  church  are  not  at  variance  in  this  matter.  What 
adds  to  the  sorrow  felt,  at  the  introduction  of  a  new 
ground  of  ditference  in  the  American  church,  is  the 

N  n 


282 

observing,  that  it  never  existed  in  the  mother  church, 
until  about  the  year  1712;  and  that  it  had  then  the 
strongest  appearances  of  apolitical  manoeuvre,  played 
off  against  the  family  on  whom  the  succession  to  the 
crown  had  been  settled  by  act  of  parliament.* 

If  the  prejudice  should  prevail,  it  is  very  unfor- 
tunate that  two  of  our  bishops  (Dr.  Provoostf  and 
Dr.  Jarvis)  never  received  baptism  from  an  episco- 
palian administrator.  So  that  veho  knows  what  scru- 
ples this  may  occasion,  as  to  the  vahdity  of  many  of 
our  ordinations;  and  among  the  number,  those  of 
the  very  two  gentlemen,  who  made  the  stir  at  the 
late  convention.  It  is  true,  that  to  meet  this  diffi- 
culty, the  distinction  is  devised,  of  the  possibility  of 
transmitting  the  episcopal  succession  through  per- 
sons, who  are  not  members  of  the  christian  church. 
This  was  the  sense  of  Mr.  Lawrence,  who  wrote 
with  much  zeal  on  the  subject,  about  the  time  above 
referred  to.  But  Dr.  Hickes,  who  corresponded  with 

*  James  the  first,  when  he  ascended  the  throne  of  England, 
and  pi-obably  his  son  Charles  the  first  who  succeeded  him,  had 
been  baptized  in  Scotland  by  non -episcopalian  ministers.  And 
at  the  restoration  of  Charles  the  second,  when  the  great  mass  of 
persons  who  had  grown  up  during  the  troubles,  liad  been  non- 
episcopally  baptized;  it  does  not  appear,  that  any  motion  was 
made  to  rebaptize  them.  This  confirms  the  sentiment,  that  when 
the  doctrine  was  broached  in  the  reign  of  queen  Anne,  it  was 
in  hostility  to  the  Hanoverian  family. 

t  Bishop  Provoost  was  of  an  episcopalian  family:  but  from 
some  local  or  accidental  cause,  was  baptized  by  a  minister  of  the 
low  Dutch  cliurch.  Bishop  Jarvis,  had  been  born  and  educated 
amojig  the  congregationalists. 


283 

Mr.  Lawrence  relatively  to  the  main  question,  and 
harmonized  with  him  in  it,  disagreed  with  him  on 
the  subordinate  point  of  a  man's  being  a  bishop,  with- 
out being  a  christian.  Dr.  Hickes  is  high  in  the  es- 
teem of  all  the  gentlemen,  who  incline  to  the  opinion 
of  the  i?ivalidity  of  lay  baptism.  Therefore,  who  can 
tell  to  what  extent  his  sentiment  may  prevail,  and 
what  inconveniences  it  may  occasion?  There  would 
be  no  certainty  of  the  existence  of  a  bishop  in  Chris- 
tendom. 

In  England,  the  scruple  arose  in  the  latter  end  of 
the  reign  of  queen  Anne,  when  there  opened  the 
prospect  of  introducing  the  pretender.  It  was  a  po^ 
litical  measure  to  serve  that  cause,  and  fell  with  it. 
A  reproach  was  thrown  on  the  electoral  family,  that 
they  were  unbaptized  lutherans:  as  is  noticed  in  Tin- 
dal's  continuation  of  Rapin — (p.  725,  of  vol.  3.  of 
the  continuation  the  first.) 

In  confirmation  of  the  preceding  statement,  there 
shall  be  given  in  a  note  an  exti'act  from  a  charge  of 
archdeacon  Sharp  to  the  clergy  of  his  archdeaconry. 
His  book  is  a  body  of  charged  delivered  by  him  on 
the  rubrics  and  the  canons.  He  gives  an  account 
of  a  meeting  held  at  Lambeth,  of  the  two  archbish- 
ops, and  all  the  bishops  w  ho  were  in  town.  The 
year  in  which  their  conference  was  held — 1712 — 
shows  the  coincidence  of  the  occasion  with  the  ex- 
isting state  of  politics.  The  assembled  prelates  de- 
termined unanimously  in  contrariety  to  the  scruple, 
which  the  artifice  had  excited. 


284 

As  Mr.  Lawrence's  well  known  book  on  lay  bap- 
tism was  issued  about  the  same  time,  it  was  probably 
in  aid  of  the  political  design.  For  Dr.  Sharp's  ac- 
count of  the  matter,  see  the  note.* 

*  "  In  that  year,  (1712)  the  dispute  about  the  invalidity  of 
lay-baptism  running  pretty  high,  the  two  archbishops,  with  all 
the  bishops  of  their  provinces  that  were  in  town,  came  unani- 
mously to  this  resolution,  that  lay-haptism  should  be  discouraged 
as  much  as  possible;  but  if  the  essentials  had  been  preserved  in 
a  baptism  by  a  lay  hand,  it  was  not  to  be  repeated.  But  then, 
when  it  was  proposed  that  a  declaration  of  their  sentiments  to 
this  purpose  should  be  published,  in  order  to  silence  or  deter- 
mine the  debates  raised  on  this  question,  it  was  resolved  upon 
mature  deliberation,  to  leave  the  question  as  much  undecided 
by  any  public  declaration,  as  it  was  left  in  the  public  ofl&ces  and 
canons  of  the  church,  for  tlie  better  security  of  discipline,  and 
to  prevent  any  advantages  that  might  be  taken  by  dissenters,  or 
seem  to  be  given  them,  in  favour  of  their  baptisms:  though  they 
do  not  properly  come  within  the  question  of  lay-baptisms  in 
cases  of  extremity." 

Dr.  Sharp  professes  to  have  taken  the  above  from  the  ori- 
ginal papers  signed  by  the  two  archbishops. 

The  matter  above  referred  to,  as  intended  to  be  left  unde- 
fined, was  not  the  rebaptizing  by  the  form  at  large,  or  by  the 
hypothetical  form,  for  against  both  of  these  measures,  the  arch- 
deacon cautions  his  clergy.  But,  as  in  the  English  book  of  com- 
mon prayer,  in  the  introductory  instrument  entitled  "  Concern- 
ing the  Service  of  the  Church,"  a  minister  under  doubt  is  di- 
rected to  have  recourse  to  the  ordinary,  and  as  a  doubt  may  oc- 
cur concerning  the  words  to  be  made  use  of  in  the  admission  of 
a  child  privately  baptized — "  I  certify  that  all  is  well  done,  &c." 
not  because  of  the  insufficiency  of  the  administrator,  but  on  ac- 
count of  the  irregularity  of  the  act,  the  minister  is  counselled 
by  Dr.  Sharp  to  avail  himself  of  the  said  proviso,  attached  to 
the  preface  of  the  book  of  common  prayer. 


285 

There  being  notice  on  the  journals  of  the  rejec- 
tion of  a  request  of  a  clergyman  in  Connecticut,  and 
no  reason  given,  it  comes  within  the  design  of  these 
statements,  to  record  the  case. 

The  book  is  well  esteemed;  and  it  was  not  from 
dissatisfaction  with  it,  that  the  application  was  re- 
jected; but  because  the  request  to  enjoin  the  use  of 
the  chants  and  tunes  exclusively  of  all  others,  was 
thought  unreasonable.  The  expectation  of  the  ap- 
plicant has  been  misunderstood  by  some;  who  have 
supposed,  that  he  included  in  his  demand  the  prohi- 
bition of  the  singing  of  psalms  in  metre.  It  is  true, 
that  he  disapproves  of  such  singing,  from  the  opinion 
that  it  has  an  alliance  with  schism.  But  he  meant 
no  further,  than  as  regarded  chanting  and  the  sing- 
ing of  anthems.  Yet  to  have  gratified  him,  would 
have  been  an  high  exercise  of  power.  To  set  eccle- 
siastical authority  at  work  on  a  subject,  which  here- 
tofore, in  the  church  of  England  and  in  this  church, 
and  probably  in  every  other,  has  been  left  at  large; 
would  not  forward,  but  hinder  the  carrying  of  more 
important  discipline  into  effect. 

This  is  not  said,  without  the  being  aware  of  the 
great  abuse  abounding  in  the  department  of  psalmo- 
dy, partly,  by  leaving  the  portions  to  be  sung  to  the 
choice  of  clerks  destitute  of  judgment;  and  partly, 
by  singing  tunes  either  unsuitable  to  divine  worship; 
or  suitable  to  some  of  the  sacred  compositions,  yet 
not  to  those  with  which  they  are  unskilfully  connect- 
ed. It  was  designed  to  guard  against  both  of  these 
evils,  by  the  rubric  prefixed  to  the  book  of  psalms  in 


286 

metre.  That  provision,  if  applied,  is  a  sufficient  re- 
medy for  both.  If  any  thing  further  should  be  at- 
tempted, in  a  field  open  to  so  great  a  diversity  of 
taste;  it  is  probable,  that  no  convention  would  as- 
semble, without  projected  improvements  prepared  to 
be  laid  before  them.  The  fault  of  the  unnecessary 
extension  of  authority,  would  be  felt  in  changes  with- 
out end. 

In  consequence  of  a  canon  passed  at  the  conven- 
tion of  1804,  there  was  drawn  up  by  the  house  of  bish- 
ops, and  sent  to  the  house  of  clerical  and  lay  deputies 
a  pastoral  letter,  addressed  to  the  members  generally 
of  this  church.  It  had  been  understood,  that  this  was 
a  transaction,  over  which  the  latter  house  were  to 
have  no  control. 

Philadelphia  was  fixed  on  as  the  next  place  of 
meeting;  and,  as  in  the  last  convention,  the  business 
was  concluded  with  prayer  by  the  presiding  bishop, 
in  presence  of  both  houses. 


POSTSCRIPT. 

The  consecration  which  took  place  in  Trinity 
church  in  the  city  of  New  York,  May  29,  1811, 
soon  after  the  rising  of  the  convention,  may  be  con- 
sidered as  in  some  sort  the  unfinished  business  of  it. 
Accordingly,  any  important  circumstance  attending 
the  said  act,  may  properly  have  a  place  in  these  state- 
ments. 

Such  a  circumstance  occurred  during  the  ser- 
vice, and  was  the  consequence  of  the  inadvertence  of 


287 

the  author;  who,  in  the  imposition  of  hands  on  each 
of  the  two  bisliops  elect,  omitted  the  words — "  In  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost."  The  officiating  bishop  was  unconscious  of 
the  omission;  and  the  first  intimation  of  it  to  him, 
was  by  bishop  Jarvis  in  the  way  from  church. 

Although  the  author  regretted  what  had  happen- 
ed; yet  he  had  no  expectation,  that  any  conclusion 
would  be  drawn  from  it,  for  the  injpeaching  of  the 
validity  of  the  act.  Neither  would  this  have  hap- 
pened, if  it  had  not  fallen  in  with  the  passions  which 
had  been  excited  by  the  late  election  in  New  York. 

Not  long  after  the  consecration,  it  was  publish- 
ed to  the  world,  that  the  supposed  act  of  consecra- 
tion was  essentially  defective,  because  of  the  want 
of  those  solemn  words.  Lamentations  were  made 
concerning  the  consequences  which  may  ensue,  to 
affect  the  episcopal  succession  through  future  ages; 
altogether  owing  to  its  invalidating  of  bishop  PIo- 
bart's  episcopal  character:  for  not  a  word  was  said 
in  the  publications,  of  its  having  of  the  same  effect 
on  bishop  Griswold's;  although  all  the  gentlemen 
who  had  noticed  the  omission,  testified  that  it  appli- 
ed to  both  the  cases. 

The  clamour  thus  raised,  was  of  course  met  with 
the  denial,  that  any  precise  form  of  words  was  es- 
sential to  such  an  occasion.  But  this  not  producing 
silence,  inquiry  was  made  into  the  history  of  the 
form,  as  it  stands  in  the  ordinal:  when  it  appeared, 
that  the  words  in  question  were  no  part  of  the  form 
of  the  church  of  England,  until  the  reign  of  Charles 


288 

the  2d;  were  never  in  that  of  the  primitive  church; 
and  are  not  in  the  Roman  pontifical,  at  this  day.  So 
that  on  the  principle  of  the  opposite  argument,  there 
is  not  at  this  time  a  Christian  bishop  in  the  world.* 

Then  the  objection  took  a  new  turn,  and  was 
rested  on  the  preface  to  the  ordinal;  which  requires 
the  consecration  to  be  conducted,  agreeably  to  the 
form  in  that  book.  According  to  this,  the  acciden- 
tal omission  of  a  word  or  two,  contained  in  the  book, 
must  invalidate  any  consecration  or  ordination,  in 
which  it  may  happen.  The  absurdity  being  stated 
as  a  consequence,  the  answer  was,  that  in  this  in- 
stance, the  omitted  words  involve  an  important  doc- 
trine of  our  holy  religion.  It  was  replied,  that  the 
doctrine  appears  in  many  places  in  the  service;  and 
that  it  is  manifestly  inconsistent  to  yield,  that  the 
mention  of  the  trinity  during  the  imposition  of  hands, 
is  not  essential  on  the  mere  ground  of  the  importance 
of  the  doctrine:  to  yield  further,  that  necessity  is  not 
created  by  positive  institution  only;  and  yet  to  con- 
tend, that  these  united  render  the  words  indispensa- 
ble. 

The  disposition  manifested  soon  spent  itself;  ow- 
ing, as  is  conceived,  to  the  circumstance,  that  a  few 
gentlemen  of  talents,  who  had  interested  themselves 
on  the  occasion,  without  having  been  in  the  habit  of 
attending  to  the  concerns  of  the  church,  would  not 
commit  their  characters  by  joining  in  a  criticism  so 
indefensible. 

*  See  bishop  Sparrow's  collection,  and  De  Courayer's  de- 
fence of  the  English  ordinations. 


289 

R.  Page  39.    Of  the  Convention  in  1814. 

Bishop  White  presided  in  the  house  of  bishops, 
and  the  Rev.  Dr.  Croes  in  the  house  of  clerical  and 
lay  deputies.  The  secretaries  of  the  two  houses, 
were,  of  the  former,  the  Rev.  Jackson  Kemper,  and 
of  the  latter,  the  Rev.  Ashbel  Baldwin,  assisted  by 
James  Milnor,  Esq. 

The  opening  sermon,  was  by  bishop  Hobart  of 
New  York. 

The  object  at  present,  as  in  relation  to  transac- 
tions of  former  conventions,  is  principally  to  bring 
into  view  some  facts  which  might  otherwise  be  for- 
gotten, after  having  had  an  influence  in  the  deter- 
mination of  the  measures  adopted. 

The  9th  canon,  which  dispenses  with  certain  li- 
terary qualifications  in  some  cases,  had  been  misun- 
derstood; and  abused  to  the  sustaining  of  the  notion, 
that  the  qualification  serving  for  a  substitute  is  mere 
fluency  of  speech;  evidently  found  in  some  very  igno- 
rant men,  and  even  in  some  whose  understandings 
are  naturally  weak.  It  was  thought,  that  a  solenm 
declaration,  guarding  against  the  error,  might  be  of 
use. 

The  alteration  of  the  ^9th  canon,  was  occasioned 
by  a  difference  found  in  the  diocesan  constitutions; 
and  by  a  wish  not  to  interfere  therewith,  but  to  leave 
them  to  their  respective  operation.  In  some  states, 
no  minister,  not  provided  with  a  parish,  and  no  dea- 
con, has  a  seat  or  vote  in  the  convention.  In  others, 
a  contrary  provision  had  been  made.  What  brought 

0  o 


290 

the  subject  into  view  at  this  time,  was  a  change 
which  had  taken  place  in  Connecticut:  the  old  law 
of  excluding  non-parochial  ministers  and  deacons, 
having  given  way  to  the  contrary  regulation;  much 
to  the  dissatisfaction  of  some  of  the  clergy.  The 
difference,  did  not  come  under  question  in  the  general 
convention.  But  it  seemed  reasonable  in  this  body, 
while  they  avoided  including  the  two  descriptions 
of  persons  alluded  to,  in  the  provision  for  the  office 
of  institution;  not  to  interfere  with  the  economy  of 
those  dioceses,  wherein  they  were  admitted. 

The  opinion  is  here  avowed,  that  the  latter 
course  is  the  most  proper;  although  not  alleged  to 
be  necessary.  Otherwise,  the  church  may  be  depriv- 
ed of  the  counsel  of  some  of  the  ablest  of  her  minis- 
ters, who  are  prevented  from  the  acceptance  of  pa- 
rishes by  allowable  causes;  for  example,  the  filling  of 
professorships  in  literary  institutions.  Besides,  there 
may  be  aged  clergymen,  unfit  for  active  service;  and 
yet,  not  the  less  competent  to  the  giving  of  advice. 
It  is  a  very  great  injury  to  religion,  what  has  occa- 
sionally happened,  and  will  be  especially  apt  to  oc- 
cur in  every  large  city,  that  a  man  in  holy  orders 
may  find  it  an  eligible  place  of  residence,  for  enjoy- 
ment or  for  the  management  of  some  secular  busi- 
ness. His  may  life  be  a  scandal  to  the  church:  and 
yet,  it  would  be  thought  unreasonable  to  subject  him 
to  religious  discipline,  under  a  constitution  not  ac- 
knowledging him,  as  having  an  interest  in  it. 

What  was  done  in  relation  to  the  40th  canon, 
was  at  the  instance  of  the  clerical  members  from 


291 

Connecticut.  The  canon  provides,  that  every  cler- 
gyman shall  keep  a  list  of  his  adult  parishioners  In 
the  said  state,  considerable  difficulty  was  alleged  to 
have  arisen,  as  to  what  may  be  called  a  joint  act,  in 
the  case  of"  a  person  baptized  in  some  other  commu- 
nion, but  joining  his  or  herself  to  this  church.  In 
the  case  supposed,  the  joint  act,  must  have  been  of 
the  person  and  of  the  minister  recording  his  name. 
Under  existing  circumstances,  it  does  not  appear 
how  the  query  could  have  been  solved,  except  in  the 
way  suggested  by  the  bishops:  that  is,  by  bringing 
the  matter  to  the  test  of  whatever  w^as  considered  by 
both  of  the  parties,  as  tending  to  the  effect  contem- 
plated. It  must  be  confessed,  however-  that  this  ma- 
nifests an  imperfect  state  of  disciphne.  The  subject 
is  worthy  of  the  provision  of  a  religious  form,  with 
the  view  of  estabhshing  the  certainty  of  the  transac- 
tion. But  to  make  such  a  provision  consistent,  none 
besides  persons  of  fair  characters  should  be  admit- 
ted within  the  pale:  others  to  be  allowed  as  hearers, 
and  even  to  occupy  sittings  within  a  church,  but  not 
to  have  votes  in  its  concerns. 

There  was  nothing  further  done  in  relation  to 
the  canons,  except  the  making  of  a  slight  alteration 
in  the  45th;  designed  to  dispense  with  the  duty  of 
reading  in  the  general  convention,  the  reports  of  the 
conventions  in  the  different  states. 

Perhaps  some  reason  may  be  required  for  the 
delay  still  occurring  in  regard  to  the  review  of  the 
Homilies,  recognized  as  they  are  in  the  articles. 
There  had  been  some  correspondence  on  the  subject 


292 

between  two  of  the  bishops,  the  Author  and  bishop 
Hobart.     But  it  is  involved  in  more  difficulty,  than 
would  easily  be  supposed  by  any  person,  who  has 
not  attended  to  it  particularly.     That  besides  verbal 
alterations,  some  others  are  called  for,  is  universally 
agreed.     But  to  make  the  latter,  without  departing 
from  the  principle  of  avoiding  the  charge,  and  even 
of  giving  plausible  ground  to  any  to  pretend,  that  we 
have  deviated  in  respect  to  doctrine,  is  scarcely  to 
be  expected.   On  this  account  the  author  is  not  sure, 
that  it  will  not  be  best  to  leave  the  two  books  as  they 
now  stand:  being  referred  to  in  the  articles,  as  a 
larger  explication  of  Christian  doctrine;  without  its 
being  understood,  that  assent  to  the  article  implies 
approbation  of  every  sentiment  in  the  Homilies,  or 
of  every  series  of  reasoning  whereby  any  doctrine 
of  them  is  sustained.     At  the  same  time,  if  any  mi- 
nister incline  to  read  a  hojnily  from  his  pulpit  or  fi'om 
his  desk,  and  will  take  the  trouble  of  clearing  it  from 
its  obsolete  terms  and  local  references,  (if  there  be 
any)  there  is  nothing  to  hinder  his  doing  so.    In  ano- 
ther point  of  vieAV,  however,  it  appeared  of  the  ut- 
most consequence  to  take  some  measure,  in  regard 
to  those  very  instructive  compositions.    Their  being 
sanctioned  by  the  S5th  article,  which  is  assented  to 
by  all  persons  admitted  to  the  ministry,  renders  it 
absolutely  necessary  that  they  should  have  the  means 
of  perusing  them,  and  even  of  well  weighing  their 
contents.  This  is  not  always  easily  to  be  accomplish- 
ed.   Accordingly,  it  was  judged  expedient  to  encou- 
rage a  pubhcation  of  them;  with  a  caution  against 


^.^ 


293 

its  being  understood,  that  this  church  is  concerned 
in  what  relates  to  the  civil  poUcy  of  Great  Britain. 
Under  these  views  of  the  subject,  they  have  since 
been  printed. 

For  the  sense  of  the  house  of  bishops,  dehvered 
by  them  on  this  subject,  see  Appendix  No.  21. 

The  measure  which  appears  on  the  minutes,  de- 
signed to  introduce  the  posture  of  standing  during 
the  act  ot  singing  portions  of  the  psahiis  and  of  the 
hymns  in  metre,  requires  to  be  accounted  tor.  It 
professes  to  have  been  adopted  for  the  avoiding  of 
diversity  of  custom.  But  there  may  be  an  interest- 
ing question,  as  to  the  cause  of  that  diversity. 

It  is  evident,  that  psahiis  in  metre  are  not  known 
in  the  rubrics  of  the  church  of  England.  And  yet, 
it  was  provided  in  the  very  beginning  of  the  refor- 
mation, by  the  act  of  uniformity  then  passed,  that 
psalms  or  prayers,  taken  out  of  the  Bible,  might  be 
used  in  divine  service,  provided  it  were  not  done  to 
the  omitting  of  any  part  thereof  This  was  in  tlie 
reign  of  Edward  the  6th.  In  the  course  of  that  reign, 
Sternhold  and  Hopkins  edited  their  version;  which 
must  have  been  brought  into  use,  not  by  any  special 
act  of  authority,  but  under  the  sanction  of  that  pro- 
vision. These  facts  have  been  stated,  in  a  preceding 
part  of  the  present  work.  They  are  again  referred 
to,  in  order  to  make  them  a  ground  of  the  supposi- 
tion that  the  posture  of  sitting  grew  out  of  the  laxi- 
ty of  manner,  in  which  this  part  of  the  public  devo- 
tion w  as  introduced.  When  the  present  writer  was 
in  England,  during  the  whole  of  the  year  1771  and 


294 

nearly  the  half  of  177J2,  he  was  not  in  any  church 
wherein  the  people  stood,  at  the  singing  of  the  metre 
psalms.  He  does  not  remember  to  have  seen  it,  dur- 
ing his  short  visit  to  that  country,  about  1 5  years  af- 
terwards. And  yet  it  seems  well  attested  of  late, 
thai  the  posture  of  standing  prevails  in  London  and 
its  vicinity,  and  elsewhere.  It  is  said  to  have  been 
introduced  by  the  late  excellent  bishop  of  London— 
Dr.  Porteus:  and  this  is  very  probable.  The  custom 
had  travelled  to  some  congregations  in  this  country; 
wherein,  until  lately,  it  is  not  probable  that  there  was 
a  single  congregation  who  stood,  duiing  this  part  of 
the  service.  In  order  to  put  an  end  to  the  diversity, 
and  under  the  conviction  that  standing  is  the  more 
fit  and  decent  posture,  the  bishops  proposed,  and  the 
other  house  approved  of  the  measure  which  has  been 
adopted. 

For  this  document,  see  Appendix,  No.  28. 

It  appears  on  the  journal,  that  on  a  proposal  of 
a  presbyter  of  this  church,  to  add  to  the  anthems 
serving  on  certain  festivals  instead  of  the  "  Venite," 
certain  forms  from  the  psalms,  &.c.  prepared  by  himself 
with  musical  accompaniments,  the  house  of  bishops 
proposed,  and  were  concurred  with  by  the  house  of 
clerical  and  lay  deputies,  a  determination  not  to  en- 
ter on  a  review  of  the  book  of  Common  Prayer, 
during  the  present  session:  which  may  seem  too  ge- 
neral for  the  occasion,  ('ertainly  the  two  houses,  had 
it  so  pleased  them,  might  have  proposed  to  the  next 
convention  a  particular  change,  without  going  a  step 
farther.  But  had  it  been  moved  by  any  member,  and 


295 

made  a  subject  of  discussion,  any  other  'member 
might  havo  done  the  same;  so  that  a  general  review 
might  have  been  the  consequence.  As  for  tiie  an- 
thems, they  were  such  as  might  have  been  expected 
from  the  musical  sufficiency  of  the  proposer.  There 
was  another  matter  of  a  different  nature,  compre- 
hended under  the  determination  of  the  two  houses.  A 
Rev.  member  of  the  convention  had  brought  to  it  a 
manuscript  work  of  his  own,  on  an  important  subject 
of  rehgion,  whicli  he  wished  to  be  sanctioned  by  the 
body.  It  is  not  easy  to  calculate  the  time  they  might 
have  been  kept  together,  for  a  due  examination  of  a 
work  of  this  sort;  nor  how  many  similar  apphcations 
in  future  would  have  grown  out  of  compliance  in  the 
present  instance.  The  reasons  of  the  conventional 
measures  in  the  above  cases,  are  recorded  with  the 
hope,  that  they  will  have  weight  on  the  like  occa- 
sions, if  they  should  occur. 

For  the  determination,  see  the  Appendix,  No.  29. 

The  reference  to  the  bishops  and  to  other  ec- 
clesiastical authorities,  for  the  obtaining  of  informa- 
tion on  the  subject  of  a  theological  school,  originated 
thus.  The  convention  in  South  Carolina,  had  in- 
structed their  deputies  to  propose  tbe  establishing  of 
such  an  institution;  and  accordingly,  it  had  been 
moved  and  discussed  in  the  house  of  clerical  and  lay 
deputies,  and  by  them  negatived.  On  the  last  day  of 
the  session,  it  was  moved  in  the  house  of  bishops,  by 
the  bishop  of  the  church  in  that  state.  The  ques- 
tion was  argued  with  much  interest,  although  with 
the  utmost  moderation,  by  that  bishop  on  one  side. 


296 

and  by  the  assistant  bishop  of  the  church  in  the  dio- 
cess  of  New  York,  on  the  other.  The  design  inter- 
fered especially  with  the  views  of  the  latter;  who  had 
adopted  measures  and  issued  proposals,  for  the  in- 
stituting of  a  seminary  under  the  immediate  super- 
intendence of  himself  and  his  successors,  it  was  to 
have  been  seated  in  New  Jersey,  and  the  bishop  in 
that  state  was  to  have  been  joined  in  the  superinten- 
dence. The  present  author,  conscious  that  he  had  not 
given  much  attention  to  the  subject  in  this  comparative 
view  of  it,  and  perceiving  that  existing  circumstances 
would  prevent  a  determination  during  the  present 
session,  avoided  the  opening  of  his  mind  as  to  the 
merits  of  the  question. 

The  proposal  respecting  a  copy-right  of  the  book 
of  Conmion  Prayer,  had  been  suggested  as  a  mean 
of  obtaining  an  handsome  fund  for  beneficial  purpo- 
ses. Besides  the  difficulties  in  the  way,  suggested  in 
the  instrument  relative  to  the  obtaining  of  informa- 
tion on  the  subject;  there  is  the  insuperable  objec- 
tion, which  it  seemed  the  most  prudent  not  to  notice, 
that  although  the  church  does  not  now  contemplate 
alterations  in  her  liturgy,  yet  she  ought  not  to  com- 
mit herself  in  a  measure,  which  would  put  it  beyond 
her  power  for  a  considerable  course  of  years.  To 
have  given  this  as  a  reason,  might  have  been  misun- 
derstood by  the  public.  Independently  on  that  cir- 
cumstance, there  were  those  who  had  been  former- 
ly witnesses  of  jealousy  excited  by  this  cause,  which 
they  wished  never  to  see  renewed;  so  long  as  there 
are  other  ways  of  guarding  the  integrity  of  the  book 


297 

against  coiTupt  copies.  In  most  and  probably  all  ot 
the  present,  there  are  some  errata;  which,  in  gene- 
ral, may  be  detected  by  the  reader;  and  which  might 
be  more  effectually  guarded  against  by  an  authorita- 
tive table. 

The  declaration  of  the  bishops,  approved  of  by 
tlie  other  house,  relative  to  the  identity  of  this  church 
with  the  body  formerly  known  by  the  name  of  "  the 
church  of  England  in  America,"  arose  from  the  cir- 
cumstance, that  in  some  cause  or  causes  pending  in 
the  courts,  this  identity  had  been  denied. 

The  bishops  were  informed  by  one  of  their  body, 
that  not  long  ago,  the  sentiment  had  been  expressed 
to  him  by  a  gentleman  high  in  office,  who  grounded 
what  he  alleged  on  the  book  of  Common  Prayer, 
edited  in  1785.  The  title  of  this  book  declares  it 
to  be  a  proposal.  It  was  never  ratified,  as  will  ap- 
pear on  a  reference  to  the  journals.  Had  a  subse- 
quent convention  ratified  it,  the  inference  would 
have  been  untenable  in  regard  to  a  church,  the  prin- 
ciples of  which,  as  of  the  church  from  wliich  it  be- 
came separated  by  a  dispensation  of  Providence,  de- 
clares its  competency  to  eveiy  act  of  self-government. 
The  identity  of  the  body  remained,  although  accom- 
panied by  a  newly  acquired  independence.  Still  the 
plea,  on  the  ground  taken  from  it,  is  invalidated  by 
the  non-acceptance  of  the  book.  It  being  foreseen, 
that  this  pretence  will  be  set  up,  whenever  the  ap- 
peal shall  come  on  in  Washington;  there  was  sup- 
posed to  be  a  call  for  the  declaratory  instrument, 
which  has  occasioned  the  present  explanation. 

pp 


298 

There  was  a  consideration  which  rendered  the 
declaration  especially  expedient  but  not  proper  to  be 
noticed  on  the  journal.  The  opposite  principle  was 
the  known  opinion  of  some  leading  characters  of 
Virginia;  who,  on  that  ground  had  defended  the  act 
of  the  legislature  of  that  state,  which  deprived  our 
communion  of  its  churches  and  its  glebes. 

Although  the  question  here  referred  to,  was 
brought  before  the  convention  incidentally;  yet,  as 
it  may  hereafter  be  a  subject  of  more  considerable 
attention,  and  big  with  important  consequences;  oc- 
casion shall  be  taken  to  state  what  the  reasons  for 
supporting  the  position,  that  what  is  now  called 
"the  Episcopal  church  in  the  United  States  of  Ame- 
rica,^' is  precisely,  in  succession,  the  body  formerly 
known  by  the  name  of  "  the  church  of  England  in 
America;"  the  changes  of  name  having  been  the  dic- 
tate of  a  change  of  circumstances,  in  the  civil  con- 
stitution of  the  country.* 

1st.  From  the  beginning  of  the  organizing  of  this 
church,  the  principle  has  prevailed.  It  impelled  the 
applying  to  England  for  consecration,  in  preference 
to  another  country,  where  it  might  have  been  easily 

*  Since  the  penning  of  these  remarks,  the  author  has  seen, 
in  print,  a  serious  endeavour  to  date  the  origin  of  the  Episcopal 
church,  from  the  period  of  the  consecration  of  her  bishops.  The 
position  is  rested  on  grounds,  which  do  not  here  seem  to  call  for 
a  professed  refutation:  but  it  may  be  remarked  that  the  senti- 
ments expressed  by  the  house  of  bisliops,  and  advocated  in  this 
place,  apply  to  the  notion  now  referred  to,  as  well  as  to  that  of 
which  they  were  professedly  intended. 


299 

had;  without  the  making  of  requests,  not  to  be  com- 
phed  with  but  by  the  interference  of  the  legislature  of 
a  foreign  country,  which  the  venerable  persons  pe- 
titioned might  not  be  able  to  obtain. 

2d\y.  It  will  very  much  tend  to  check  the  spirit 
of  innovation,  on  any  essential  point  of  doctrine:  be- 
cause, if  such  a  matter  should  be  attempted,  the  ori- 
ginal standard  will  be  appealed  to;  and  the  adherents 
to  it  will  plead,  that  they  are  the  church  from  which 
the  innovators,  whether  many  or  few,  have  depart- 
ed. This  needs  not  to  hinder  alterations  in  less  im- 
portant matters;  because,  notwithstanding  the  paren- 
tage gloried  in  by  us,  we  are  an  independent  church; 
and  so  acknowledged  by  that  from  which  we  plead 
to  have  descended. 

Sdly.  The  security  of  property,  is  a  considera- 
tion. This  has  been  spoken  of  already:  but  there 
shall  be  added  information  received  from  a  respec- 
table source.  It  is,  that  on  the  arrival  of  bishop  Sea- 
bury  in  Connecticut,  he  consulted  his  friend  Dr. 
Wm.  Samuel  Johnson  of  Stratford,  whose  leaning  to 
him  and  his  cause  with  a  strong  attachment  to  the 
Episcopal  church,  cannot  be  doubted,  as  to  his  right 
to  the  income  of  a  handsome  landed  property,  left 
for  the  support  of  a  future  bishop  of  the  church  of 
England  in  America.  Dr.  Johnson  is  said  to  have 
been  of  opinion,  that  bishop  Seabury  could  not  claim 
it. 

4thly,  and  principally;  regard  is  here  had  to 
their  being  a  fence  to  the  truths  of  the  gospel,  pre- 
valent in  the  days  of  Edward  the  6th.  Any  superad- 


300 

ditions,  which  may  have  been  either  popular,  or  in- 
troduced by  influential  churchmen  afterwards,  are 
here  put  out  of  view. 

The  principle  contended  for  cannot  be  under- 
stood, without  remarking  the  distinction  between  a 
sameness  of  two  churches  in  doctrine,  discipline,  and 
worship,  and  their  identity  in  a  corporate  capacity. 
When  in  the  reign  of  James  the  1st,  and  afterwards 
in  that  of  Charles  the  2d,  there  were  consecrated  in 
England  bishops  for  the  church  of  Scotland,  the 
churches  of  the  two  countries  were  the  same  in  the 
particulars  of  principle  abovementioned;  but  were  so 
far  from  being  one,  that  to  avoid  the  appearance  of 
it,  and  to  guard  against  a  consequent  ascendancy  of 
the  English  hierarchy  over  that  of  Scotland,  it  was 
carefully  provided,  at  each  of  the  times  referred  to, 
that  the  bishops  of  the  latter  country  should  not  be 
consecrated  by  either  of  the  archbishops  of  Canter- 
bury and  York. 

Neither  is  what  is  here  said,  intended  to  discoun- 
tenance all  changes,  which  succeeding  circumstances 
may  render  expedient.  In  respect  to  doctrine,  if,  at 
any  time,  for  the  sake  of  comprehension,  there  should 
be  silence  on  any  points  not  essential  to  christian  ve- 
rity, and  for  the  sake  of  comprehension,  it  would  not 
supersede  the  principle  here  sustained.  On  the  sub- 
ject of  rites  and  ceremonies;  it  is  the  judgment  of  the 
church  of  England,  that  they  may  be  regulated  ac- 
cording to  the  circumstances  of  different  times  and 
places.  And  under  the  head  of  the  constitution  of 
the  christian  church  and  the  discipline  of  it,  there  is 


301 

no  reluctance  to  record  the  opinion,  that  if  an  im- 
portant object  were  likely  to  be  accomplished,  there 
would  be  no  difficulty  in  taking  a  ground,  which 
would  not  be  objected  to  by  the  more  moderate  of 
the  non-episcopalians,  provided  there  ceased  objec- 
tions of  another  kind;  especially  the  greatest  hind- 
rance of  all,  in  the  irritation  kept  alive  by  the  intem- 
perate zeal  of  some  on  each  side.  But,  if  ever  there 
should  be  a  surrendry  of  those  evangelical  truths, 
which  are  not  only  affirmed  in  the  39  articles,  but 
pervade  the  services,  and  are  generally  understood 
to  be  the  leading  doctrines  of  the  reformation,  its 
fall  may  be  counted  on ;  and  because  of  such  change, 
ought  not  to  be  regretted. 

The  maintaining  of  the  above  principle,  consist- 
ently with  a  strong  desire  of  comprehending  bishop 
Seabury  and  his  church  within  our  connexion,  pla- 
ced the  author  of  this  in  very  delicate  circumstances, 
for  some  time:  especially  as  he  was  not  so  happy  as 
to  have  the  concurrence  of  bishop  Provoost,  on  the 
latter  subject.  The  author  persevered  with  him,  in 
the  plan  of  obtaining  the  canonical  number  from 
England:  but  thought  there  would  be  no  inconsistency, 
after  the  succession  had  become  complete,  and  even 
during  the  measures  leading  to  it,  in  yielding  person- 
al priority  to  bishop  Seabury. 

Accordingly,  the  author  will  conclude  with  the 
expression  of  a  feeling,  which  from  his  veiy  early 
years,  has  been  attendant  on  his  vievi^s  of  religion; 
and  which  he  cannot  clothe  in  more  appropriate 
words  than  those  of  Father  Paul  of  Venice — "  Esto 


302 

perpetua:"  that  is,  may  the  church  so  constituted  and 
continued,  last  for  ever. 

Because  of  the  importance  of  the  declaration  of 
the  convention  on  the  preceding  subject,  it  is  given 
in  the  Appendix,  No.  30. 


S.  Page  45.     Of  the  Convention  of\8\l. 

Bishop  White  presided  in  the  house  of  bishops. 
In  the  house  of  clerical  and  lay  deputies,  first  Dr. 
Isaac  Wilkins  of  New  York,  and  afterwards  the 
Rev.  Wni.  H  Wilmer  of  Alexandria  presided.  The 
secretaries  were  of  the  former  house,  the  Rev.  Ben- 
jamin T.  Ondcrdonk,  and  of  the  latter,  the  Rev. 
Ashbel  Baldwin. 

After  divine  service,  and  tlie  sermon  by  bishop 
Griswold;  and  in  compliance  with  a  resolve  of  the 
last  convention,  there  was  an  administration  of  the 
holy  communion. 

There  having  appeared  at  this  convention  two 
bishops,  in  addition  to  those  i;formerly  mentioned;  it 
falls  within  the  design  of  this  work  to  record,  that 
the  first  of  them,  the  Rev.  Dr.  James  fiLemp  of  Ma- 
ryland, was  consecrated  on  the  1st  of  September 
1814,  in  Christ  church,  in  the  city  of  New  Bruns- 
wick, New  Jersey,  by  the  presiding  bishop,  assi^-ted 
by  bishops  Hobart  and  Moore;  and  that  the  other, 
the  Rev.  Dr.  John  Croes  of  New  Jersey,  was  conse- 
crated on  the  19th  day  of  November  1815,  in  St.  Pe- 
ter's church  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  by  the  presid- 
ing bishop,  assisted  by  bishops  Hobart  and  Kemp 


303 

Opposition  having  been  made  to  the  consecra- 
tion of  bishop  Kemp;  the  three  consecrating  bishops 
weighed  very  seriously  the  objections  presented  to 
their  notice:  the  more  so,  as  among  tlie  signers  of 
the  protest  sent,  there  appeared  the  names  of  per- 
sons known  to  have  possessed  respectability  in  the 
diocess.  The  detailing  of  the  objections  included  in 
the  protest,  with  the  reasons  of  their  adjudged  irrele- 
vancy, seems  called  for  by  regard  to  the  future  res- 
pectability of  the  church,  and  to  the  consistency  of 
the  consecrating  bishops. 

The  first  objection  was,  that  the  office  of  a  suf- 
fragan bishop  was  unknown  in  the  constitution  of 
the  church  of  Maryland.  On  this  point  it  was  con- 
sidered, that  although  neither  the  office  of  a  suffi'a- 
gan  nor  that  of  a  coadjutor  or  assistant  bishop,  was 
noticed  in  the  constitution,  either  of  them  might  be 
rendered  expedient  by  existing  circumstances,  as  a 
character  often  met  with  in  the  histor}'  of  the  chris- 
tian church;  that  a  coadjutor  or  assistant  bishop  had 
been  introduced  into  another  diocess,  without  being 
mentioned  in  its  constitution,  and  yet  without  the 
charge  of  unconstitutionality:  that  as  the  bishop  of 
the  diocess  now  in  question,  in  the  year  1811,  had 
proposed  the  electing  of  a  bishop  to  aid  him,  he  must 
have  presumed  the  legality  of  the  measure,  and  it  did 
not  since  appear  tl^at  he  had  altered  his  mind,  or  that 
the  sentiment  had  been  until  now  contradicted  by 
any  person;  that  in  \S\2,  the  convention  had  balloted 
on  the  question  of  having  a  suffiagan,  and  although  it 
was  then  carried  in  the  negative,  it  does  not  appear. 


304 

that  they  were  supposed  by  any  of  the  members  to 
be  irregularly  occupied.  Even  the  signers  of  the 
protest,  must  have  thought  it  regular  at  the  time. 

The  second  objection,  denied  that  Dr.  Kemp  had 
been  chosen  by  a  constitutional  majorit)^:  but  the 
journal  manifested  the  contrary;  there  appearing,  to 
have  been  in  his  favour  two  thirds  of  the  members 
present.  This  objection  was  stated  in  such  general 
terms,  that  it  could  not  have  been  much  relied  on. 

The  third  objection  imported,  that  the  general 
opinion  concerning  the  measure  of  chusing  a  suifra- 
gan,  had  been  expressed  by  the  silence  of  the  con- 
vention of  1813;  the  next  after  that  which  had  ne- 
gatived the  measure.  There  may  have  been  some 
reason  for  this,  which  the  consecrating  bishops  had 
no  means  of  obtaining.  The  prospect  of  the  return- 
ing health  of  the  diocesan  bishop,  may  have  been  the 
reason.  The  bishops  however  perceived  from  in- 
spection of  the  journals,  that  of  19  clergymen, 
and  32  lay-men  present  in  the  convention  of  1813, 
not  a  third  of  either  order  had  been  induced  to  sign 
the  protest.  Although  there  were  in  this  convention 
two  more  of  the  clergy,  and  seven  more  of  the  laity 
than  in  that  of  1814,  when  the  choice  was  made;  yet 
the  members  of  the  latter  were  precisely  those  of 
1812;  when  no  fault  appears  to  have  been  alleged 
against  the  balloting  for  a  suffragan,  because  of  the 
paucity  of  electors.  It  was  further  considered  un- 
der this  head,  that  the  requisition  of  two  thirds  for 
the  electing  of  a  bishop,  as  provided  by  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  church  of  Maryland,  and  which  was  sa- 


305 

tisfied  by  the  issue  of  the  election  in  the  present 
instance,  was  probably  for  the  purpose  of  guard- 
ing against  an  advantage  which  might  be  taken  of 
a  tliin  convention.  On  any  other  principle,  it  would 
seem  to  have  been  unwise  to  make  a  provision,  by 
which  a  sixth  of  the  number  and  one  more,  would 
have  it  in  their  power,  to  arrest  at  pleasure  all  episco- 
pal administration  in  the  diocess. 

The  fourth  objection,  rested  on  the  charge  of 
surprise  and  management.  Nothing  of  these,  was 
apparent  on  the  journal.  They  are  not  a  ground,  on 
which  an  election  may  be  set  aside.  In  the  collision 
of  parties,  they  are  commonly  charged  by  each  on 
the  other.  On  the  present  occasion,  no  specific  facts 
were  alleged,  and  no  evidence  was  offered. 

On  the  whole  subject  of  the  objections,  the  bish- 
ops were  of  opinion,  that  if  the  substance  of  the  pro- 
test was  designed  to  arrest  the  consecration,  it  ought 
to  have  been  communicated  to  the  convention  by 
which  Dr.  Kemp  had  been  elected;  and  that  after 
the  neglect  of  this,  the  defect  ought  to  have  been  in 
some  measure  stipplied,  by  its  being  made  known  to 
the  bishops  called  on  to  consecrate,  that  the  instru- 
ment, which  was  put  into  print  for  the  ease  of  mul- 
tiplying copies,  had  been  communicated  individually 
to  those  who  were  so  materially  interested  in  its  con- 
tents.    These  remarks,  were  designed  to  have  an 
especial  bearing  on  the  position  of  the  protest,  that 
the  succession  of  the  bishop  elect  to  the  diocesan 
episcopacy  was  carried  by  acclamation.  The  bishops 
were  possessed  of  evidence,  that  the  question  was 

Qq 


306 

put  and  the  vote  taken,  in  the  usual  form  of  conven- 
tional business.  They  were  the  more  induced  to  re- 
ly on  the  testimony  to  this  effect  by  the  circumstance, 
that  among  the  affirmants  of  the  contrary,  there 
were  some  who  were  not  present  at  the  disgraceful 
transaction,  if  it  happened. 

In  addition  to  the  protest,  there  was  exhibited 
by  the  presiding  bishop,  a  letter  to  him  from  two 
clergymen  of  the  diocess,  charging  the  bishop  elect 
with  being  unsound  in  the  faith,  and  an  enemy  to 
vital  godliness.  If  the  signers  of  the  letter  had  sub- 
stantiated the  first  of  the  two  charges,  or  the  latter 
of  them,  in  the  sense  understood  in  Scripture  under 
the  term  "  godliness,"  essentially  involving  renovation 
of  the  affections  manifested  in  the  fruits  of  holiness, 
the  bishops  would  have  rejected  the  application  be- 
fore them,  from  the  respectable  diocess  of  Maryland. 
But,  the  writers  of  the  letter  alleged  no  specific  facts; 
they  referred  to  no  evidence;  and  the  accused  party 
declared,  that  they  had  not  even  notified  to  him  the 
accusation. 

The  writers  of  the  letter,  demanded  a  hearing 
by  counsel.  Setting  aside  the  insufficiency  of  the 
applicants,  the  novelty  of  the  proposal,  and  all  ques- 
tion of  the  propriety  of  such  a  precedent  to  be  set 
hy  any  three  bishops  who  might  be  assembled;  it 
could  not  but  occur  to  those  now  present,  that  tlie 
other  party  in  the  case  would  be  the  convention  of 
Maryland,  who  had  no  opportunity'  of  being  heard  by 
counsel.  Had  Dr.  Kemp  been  considered  as  the 
other  party,  there  would  have  been  evident  impro- 


307 

priety  in  subjecting  him  to  a  hearing,  under  a  charge 
brouglit  against  him  unexpectedly,  and  remote  from 
his  place  of  residence.  Perhaps  it  was  expected, 
that  the  consecration  would  be  delayed,  with  a  view 
to  a  future  hearing.  But  neitlier  ought  the  bishops 
to  have  accecded  to  this,  when  it  would  have  been  to 
subject  to  reproach  the  character  of  a  clergyman, 
who  had  been  greatly  respected  in  the  diocess  during 
nearly  25  years;  and  this  at  the  request  of  two  cler- 
gymen, who  do  not  appear  to  have  hazarded  the 
charges  in  the  convention;  and  who,  in  bringing  them 
forward  at  this  time,  must  have  thought  differently 
from  those  who  joined  with  them  in  the  protest,  h  or 
it  would  be  injurious  to  the  religious  profession,  and 
to  the  understandings  of  the  latter,  to  suppose  that 
they  had  withheld  those  charges,  while  they  were 
urging  objections  of  far  less  magnitude.* 

Those  were  the  reasons,  on  which  the  bishops 
rested  their  procedure;  and  tliey  were  detailed  by 
them,  in  a  letter  to  bishop  Clagget^ 

Soon  after  the  consecration  of  Dr.  Kemp,  the 
object  of  the  opposition  to  him,  as  it  was  cherished 
by  some  of  his  opponents,  showed  itsell"  without  dis- 
guise. Four  or  five  clergymen,  who  had  obtained 
the  concurrence  of  some  respectable  peisons  in  that 
preparatory  measure,  but  not  in  what  followed,  ap- 

*  It  was  with  a  view  to  an  influence  on  the  question  of  the 
election  of  Dr.  Kemp,  that  the  story  concerning  the  election  gf 
Dr.  Giiffitli  noticed  in  this  work  (p.  171.)  was  handed  about;  pro- 
bably fabricated  by  some,  but  certainly  believed  without  inten 
irional  error  by  others. 


308 

plied  first  to  bishop  Claggett,  and,  on  his  refusal,  to 
bishop  Provoost,  to  consecrate  singly  the  person  who 
should  be  elected  by  the  applicants.  It  is  not  neces- 
sary to  prove,  that  the  bishops  so  applied  to  were 
men  of  too  much  truth  and  honour,  to  have  consider- 
ed for  a  moment  of  so  unprincipled  a  proposal.  But 
the  matter  should  be  remembered,  as  pregnant  with 
admonition.  A  bishop  of  this  church,  during  the 
service  of  consecration,  after  uttering  the  solemn 
words — "  In  the  name  of  God,  amen,^^  promises  con- 
formity and  obedience  to  the  doctrine,  the  disciphne 
and  the  worship  of  this  church.  According  to  the 
application,  all  the  checks  designed  to  govern  in  ad- 
mission to  the  episcopacy,  were  to  be  disregarded. 

That  small  number  of  clergymen  exhibited  them- 
selves as  competent  to  an  act,  to  which  they  had  re- 
cently affirmed  an  incompetency,  in  two  thirds  of  the 
clergy  and  representatives  of  the  laity,  in  convention. 
And  all  this,  was  under  the  profession  of  serving  the 
cause  of  vital  godliness. 

On  the  subject  of  a  theological  school,  discussed 
in  the  general  convention,  as  set  forth  on  the  journal, 
a  plan  different  from  that  adopted,  was  recommended 
by  the  convention  of  Pennsylvania.  It  was  as  follows. 

"  1st.  That  there  be  a  recommendation  to  the 
church  in  the  several  states,  to  raise  a  fund;  the  in- 
come of  which  may  be  applied,  as  the  general  wisdom 
of  the  church  may  direct.^^ 

"  2dly.  That  wherever  there  is  such  a  concentra- 
tion of  clergymen,  as  that  they  can  assemble  often, 
and  at  convenient  times,  they  may  be  requested  to 


309 

bestow  their  endeavours  gratuitously,  for  the  accom- 
plishing of  the  present  object,  and, 

"  3dly.  That  the  income  of  the  contemplated 
funds  be  applied  to  such  local  endeavours,  if  thought 
expedient,  so  as  to  secure  the  especial  attention  of 
one  or  more  of  the  clergy,  to  be  devoti  d  altogether 
or  in  part,  to  the  educating  of  young  men  lor  the 
ministiy;  until  a  general  plan  be  adopted,  if  that 
should  be  considered  hereafter  as  more  eligible/' 

The  reasons  which  weighed  to  the  preference  of 
this  plan,  were — the  time  intervening  between  one 
convention  and  another — the  expediency  of  limiting 
the  views  of  that  body,  to  what  is  essential  to  the 
keeping  of  us  together  as  one  church — the  danger 
of  local  jealousies,  and — the  easier  maintenance  of 
students,  under  their  paternal  roofs:  which  would  not 
always  apply  according  to  either  of  the  schemes,  but 
would  be  much  more  frequent  under  that  proposed 
than  under  the  other.  There  was,  however,  such  a 
latitude  left  by  the  suggestion  from  Pennsylvania,  as 
that  there  might  hereafter  be  a  general  seminary 
grafted  on  it,  either  to  the  superseding  of  the  local 
schools,  or  for  the  finishing  of  the  education  of  the 
scholars,  as  might  be  expedient.  It  is  to  be  hoped, 
that  the  other  plan,  after  having  been  generally  adopt- 
ed, will  be  universally  and  with  effect  supported. 

On  the  subject  of  improper  amusements,  there 
was  a  controversy  of  some  warmth,  in  the  house  of 
clerical  and  lay  deputies.  In  the  house  of  bishops, 
there  was  unanimity  in  the  course  taken.  This  course 
as  recorded  on  the  journal,  and  including  some  sen- 


310 

timents  in  the  pastoral  letter,  addressed  to  the  mem- 
bers of  the  church  generally,  and  read  as  usual  in 
the  house  of  clerical  and  lay  deputies,  was  said  to 
have  conciliated  to  their  disappointment,  those  in  the 
latter  house  who  had  pressed  for  a  stronger  measure, 
which  had  not  been  carried.  There  having  been 
misrepresentations  of  what  passed  on  this  subject 
from  speakers  on  each  side;  and,  as  what  finally 
proceeded  from  the  bishops  was  said  to  have  been 
satisfactor}'^  to  each,  there  may  be  use  in  presenting 
it  at  large,  accordingly,  it  is  given  in  the  appendix, 
No.  31. 

The  proposal  for  the  adopting  of  a  standard  edi- 
tion of  the  bible,  was  in  consequence  of  the  discovery 
of  a  large  edition,  extending  very  widely  a  corrup- 
tion of  acts  6,  3,  by  perverting  it  to  a  sanction  of 
congregational  ordination.  Instead  of  "  whom  we 
may  appoint  over  this  business,"  which  is  the  exact 
translation  of  the  original,  the  edition  has  it  "  whom 
ye  may  appoint  over  this  business."  While  the  mat- 
ter was  before  the  house  of  clerical  and  lay  deputies; 
a  lay  member,  standing  in  a  pew,  and  observing  a 
bible,  took  it  to  turn  to  the  place  in  question;  when 
he  perceived  it  to  be  a  copy  of  the  edition,  in  which 
the  corruption  had  been  detected.  The  proposal  of 
determining  on  a  standard  edition,  had  been  made 
without  the  expectation  of  its  being  acted  on  during 
the  session.  It  was  closed  with  a  joint  vote  ot  the 
two  houses,  to  hold  the  next  triennial  meeting  in  the 
city  of  Philadelphia;  and  with  prayer  by  the  presi- 
ding bishop,  before  both  houses  as  usual. 


311 

Although  the  object  of  the  "  additional  statements 
and  remarks/'  is  limited  to  the  proceedings  of  the 
general  convention  of  1817;  there  being  no  subse- 
quent transactions  which  have  bearings  on  the  doc- 
trine, or  the  worship  or  the  discipline  of  the  church; 
yet  it  may  not  be  irrelevant  to  record,  that,  since  that 
period,  there  have  been  consecrated  the  Rev.  Phi- 
lander Chase,  D.D.  for  the  state  of  Ohio,  and  the 
Rev.  Thomas  C.  Brownell  D.D.  for  the  state  of 
Connecticut:  the  former,  on  the  11th  day  of  I-ebru- 
ary,  1819,  in  St.  James's  church,  Philadelphia,  by 
the  presiding  bishop,  assisted  by  bishops  Hobart, 
Kemp,  and  Croes,  and  the  latter,  on  the  27th  day  of 
October,  1819,  in  Trinity  church,  New-Haven,  by 
the  presiding  bishop,  assisted  by  bishops  Hobart  and 
Griswold. 

As  the  act  of  the  convention  of  1 785  was  au- 
thenticated by  the  signatures  of  all  the  members  of 
the  body;  as  it  laid  the  foundation  of  the  succeeding 
transactions;  and  as  it  has  never  been  given  in  full 
to  the  public;  the  only  evidence  of  it  being  the  ori- 
ginal, in  the  possession  of  the  author;  it  has  appeared 
to  him,  while  the  preceding  sheets  were  in  the  press, 
that  the  object  of  this  work  calls  for  the  editing  of 
the  instrument  in  its  proper  form.  The  address  to 
the  English  prelates  is  referred  to,  but  not  compre- 
hended in  the  act.  Delicacy  having  dictated  the  al- 
lowance of  reasonable  time  for  the  delivery  of  it. 

Neither  of  the  instruments  entitled  "  alterations, 
&c."  has  been  before  published;  although  the  results 
of  them  have  appeared,  in  what  has  been  called  the 


312 

Proposed  Book:  but,  as  the  book  is  gradually  disap- 
pearing, it  may  be  hereafter  important,  to  have  an 
exhibition  of  them  as  they  stand  in  the  original  act. 
The  constitution  as  then  proposed,  as  ratified  in 
1786,  and  as  done  away  in  1789,  is  in  the  book  of 
printed  journals,  but  not  in  any  preceding  part  of 
this  work. 

For  the  said  act,  see  Appendix  No.  S2. 


POSTSCRIPT, 

In  the  foregoing  statements  and  remarks^  the 
more  immediate  object  was  the  recording  of  facts, 
throwing  light  on  the  measures  of  conventional  bo- 
dies; and  the  expressing  of  opinions,  which  arose  out 
of  the  various  subjects  under  notice:  the  opinions  be- 
ing proposed,  with  the  hope  that  they  will  have  such 
weight,  as  on  examination  may  be  thought  their  due. 
The  work  being  brought  to  a  conclusion,  and  the 
reader  being  qualified  to  judge  of  the  merits  of  ano- 
ther motive  to  be  disclosed;  it  is  now  declared  to  be 
the  conviction,  that  instruction  may  be  gathered  from 
the  detail. 

1st.  On  a  retrospect  of  the  low  condition  in  which 
the  episcopal  church  had  been  left  by  the  revolution- 
ary war;  of  her  clergy,  reduced  almost  to  annihilation; 
of  the  novelty  of  the  business  arising  out  of  the  ex- 
isting crisis;  of  the  despair  of  many,  as  to  the  perpe- 
tuating of  the  communion,  otherwise  than  in  connex- 
ion with  an  establishment,  liom  which  it  was  for 


313 

ever  severed;  of  an  unwillingness  to  recognize  such 
a  severance,  although  brought  about  by  the  provi- 
dence of  God,  and  the  recognizing  of  it  agreeable 
to  a  prominent  principle  in  the  institutions  of  the  pa- 
rent church;  of  a  difficulty,  to  be  done  away  only  by 
legislative  acts,  which  perhaps  it  would  be  impossi- 
ble to  obtain,  and  which  we  could  not  apply  for,  con- 
sistently with  our  civil  duties;  of  the  apprehension  of 
conflicting  opinions  in  different  sections  of  the  United 
States,  between  which  there  had  been  hitherto  no 
religious  intercourse;  of  the  existence  of  known  dif- 
ferences, on  some  points;  and  with  all  these  things, 
of  danger  from  selfish  passions,  so  apt  to  intrude  un- 
der imposing  appearances,  defeating  the  best  intend- 
ed endeavours  in  collective  bodies;  it  must  be  per- 
ceived, that  there  w^ere  formidable  obstacles  to  be 
surmounted,  in  combining  the  insulated  congrega- 
tions, with  the  respective  clergy  of  those  who  had 
any,  under  an  indisputable  succession  of  the  episco- 
pacy; and  with  an  ecclesiastical  legislature,  neces- 
sarily differing  in  form  from  that  under  which  w^e 
had  been  from  the  beginning,  yet  the  same  with  it  in 
principle.     The  difference  between  what  has  been 
thus  looked  back  on,  and  the  present  circumstances 
of  the  church,  is  a  ground  of  gratitude  to  Almighty 
God.     In  what  degree,  this  change  of  prospect  has 
been  promotive  of  piety  and  of  correct  conduct, 
will   not  be  known  until  the  day  which  will  "  try 
every  man's  work,  whether  it  be  of  gold  and  silver 
and  precious  stones,''  or  "  of  wood  and  hay  and 
stubble."     In  the  mean  time,  we  have  encourage- 

R  r 


314 

ment  to  proceed,  in  humble  dependence  on  him, 
without  whom,  even  "  Paul  may  plant  and  Apollos 
may  water^^  in  vain. 

2nd.  It  is  trusted,  that  there  will  be  no  indeco- 
rum, in  recalling  the  attention  of  the  reader  to  the 
absence  of  selfish  passion  in  all  the  preceding  re- 
cords of  the  results  of  ecclesiastical  legislation.  If 
those  who  have  been  engaged  in  the  proceedings  have 
been  supposed  in  this  work  to  have  fallen  into  error 
in  some  instances,  it  is  hoped  that  the  noticing  of  it 
will  not  give  offence;  especially  as  it  is  by  one,  who, 
in  the  same  work,  has  occasionally  acknowledged 
error  in  himself;  and  who  is  ready  to  believe,  that  it 
may  have  happened  to  him  in  many  instances,  in 
which  he  has  not  sufficient  sagacity,  nor  sufficient 
distrust  of  himself,  for  the  detecting  of  it.  He  con- 
fidently believes  of  the  members  of  the  conventions 
generally,  that  they  have  been  actuated  by  upright 
motives.  Of  his  brethren  in  the  episcopacy  he  bears 
testimony,  that  he  has  not  seen  any  occasion,  on 
which  any  one  of  them  has  manifested  a  disposition 
to  sacrifice  principle  to  any  selfish  gratification.  If 
there  be  thought  correctness  in  these  remarks,  let 
the  example  be  influential  in  similar  proceedings  in 
future.  In  all  the  affairs  which  interest  the  human 
mind,  there  is  the  danger  of  estimating  measures, 
according  to  their  bearings  on  some  purposes, 
prompted  by  ambition  or  by  vanity.  The  purposes, 
are  not  always  discernible;  and  there  can  scarcely 
occur  a  question,  on  which  talent,  even  if  it  amount 
to  no  more  than  cunning,  may  not  be  capable  of 


315 

drawing  to  itself  a  party.  In  this  way,  there  have 
arisen  most  of  the  dissentions  which  have  torn  Chris- 
tendom into  sects.  As  yet,  ^ve  have  been  preserved, 
by  the  grace  of  God,  from  any  material  inroads  of 
it:  and  the  noticing  of  the  fact  may  serve,  among 
other  weighty  considerations,  to  vigilance  against  it 
in  future  counsels. 

3rd.  Another  lesson  arising  out  of  the  review,  is 
that  of  mutual  concession  in  small  matters;  and  even 
in  regard  to  others  more  important  yet  not  essential, 
the  bearing  with  what  may  not  be  approved  of,  un- 
der the  expectation  that  it  will  be  found  on  trial 
better  than  had  been  expected;  or,  that  it  will  be 
corrected  after  more  mature  consideration.  Of  the 
latter  especially,  many  instances  have  occurred,  on 
questions  which,  without  such  forbearance,  would 
assuredly  have  divided  the  church  into  communions 
censuring,  and  perhaps  perpetuating  hostility  to  one 
another.  As  to  the  other  branch  of  the  recommen- 
dation, it  is  clearly  the  dictate  of  a  due  consideration 
of  the  various  casts  of  the  minds  of  men.  It  would 
indeed  be  surprising,  that  any  should  run  into  the 
opposite  error;  did  we  not  know,  how  unbending 
some  are  in  favour  of  their  own  opinions,  even  in 
matters  which  cannot  be  brought  before  the  tri- 
bunal of  conscience:  so  that  on  a  question  of  taste, 
they  are  impatient  under  every  decision  not  confor- 
mable to  their  wishes.  The  way  to  bear  down  the 
influence  of  men  so  fastidious,  and  under  so  evident 
a  propensity  to  disorder,  is  for  those  more  reasonable 
to  make  sacrifices  to  one  another. 


\ 


316 

4th.  It  will  be  a  most  important  use  of  the  re- 
view,  to   notice   the   undeviating  intention  of  the 
church,  to  make  no  such  alterations,  as  shall  inter- 
fere with  the  maintaining  of  the  doctrines  of  the  gos- 
pel, as  acknowleged  at  the  reformation.   That  point 
of  time  should  be  kept  in  mind,  in  order  to  protect 
the  church,  not  only  against  threatened  innovations 
from  without,  but  also  against  others  which  have  oc- 
casionally showed  their  heads  in  the  church  of  Eng- 
land, and  may  show  their  heads  in  this  church,  be- 
traying a  lurking  fondness  for  errors  which  had  been 
abandoned.     Neither  have  there  been  wanting  some 
among  us,  who  would  have  drawn  our  system  to- 
wards opinions,  which  we  consider  as  an  approach 
to  infidelity,  and  a  mean  of  reconciling  the  mind  to 
it.     We  were  under  the  suspicion  of  intending  this, 
in  our  first  efforts  for  the  organizing  of  the  church. 
It  is  impossible  to  verify  the  suspicion  by  any  of  the 
transactions  recorded,  or  by  any  of  a  more  private 
nature:  and  if  individuals  harboured  the  design,  which 
is  not  here  known  to  have  been  the  case,  they  saw 
no  opening  for  the  accomplishing  of  it;  and  accord- 
ingly, permitted  it  to  die  within  their  bosoms.  There 
is  this  farther  use  in  the  reference  to  the  reformation, 
that  it  frowns  disapprobation  on  endeavours  tending 
to  debase  our  forms  of  worship,  by  the  intermixture 
of  devotional  exercises  of  a  contrary  cast  of  charac- 
ter.    How  far  this  abuse  calls  for  the  exercise  of 
ecclesiastical  authority,  and  how  far  it  may  be  born 
with,  under  the  expectation  that  it  carries  in  itself 
the  seeds  of  its  dissolution,  is  a  question  partly  of 


317 

conscience,  and  partly  also  of  religious  prudence.  It 
is  a  property  of  the  past  proceedings  of  our  newly 
organized  church,  that  the  gold  found  by  her  in  pos- 
session, has  not  been  adulterated  by  any  debasing 
alloy;  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  she  has  followed  the 
counsel  given  by  the  prophet  Jeremiah  to  the  Jews, 
to  "ask  for  the  old  paths  and  to  walk  therein."  In 
one  who  has  kept  this  object  steadily  in  view,  it  will 
not  be  thought  inadmissible,  to  express  his  wish  and 
to  put  up  his  prayer,  that  the  same  integrity  of  prin- 
ciple may  be  sustained  by  those  who  are  now  his 
fellow-labourers,  and  may  be  expected  to  survive  him, 
and  by  those  who  may  succeed. 

If  any  thing  were  wanting  to  confirm  him  in  his 
sentiments  on  the  present  subject,  the  deticiency 
would  be  supplied  by  the  many  occasions  which  have 
occurred  to  him,  of  remarking  the  vanity  and  the 
love  of  self-exhibition  manifested  in  endeavours  to 
the  contrary;  a  fault,  which,  if  it  be  sometimes  seen 
to  subsist  with  general  rectitude  of  intentions,  is  only 
one  instance  out  of  many,  verifying  our  Lord's  re- 
proof of  another  species  of  misdirected  zeal — "  ye 
know  not  what  manner  of  spirit  ye  are  of  ^^ 

othly.  These  memoirs  may  serve  for  a  check  to 
the  unnecessary  exercise  of  authorit}-;  and  may  sus- 
tain the  opinion,  that  there  being  retained,  in  pro- 
fession, the  essentials  of  christian  verity;  and,  in 
practice,  the  degree  of  submission  to  public  will  ne- 
cessary to  social  worship;  much  of  what  is  made  the 
subject  of  ecclesiastical  law,  may  be  safely  left  to  the 
diversity  of  sentiment  which  is  the  result  of  differ- 


318 

ence  of  intelligence,  of  education,  and  of  constitu- 
tional character.  But,  as  in  an  army,  combination 
of  force  is  found  to  excite  their  courage  for  an  enter- 
prize,  more  hazardous  to  every  one  engaged  in  it  than 
a  danger  from  which  he  would  shrink  in  his  individual 
character;  so,  in  a  representative  body,  a  member  of 
it  is  prone  to  calculate  on  a  degree  of  submission,  be- 
yond what  he  would  have  imagined  in  the  capacity 
of  a  sole  legislator,  although  clothed  with  authority 
greater  than  that  in  the  other  case  supposed. 

In  the  estimation  of  discreet  persons  generally, 
ecclesiastical  legislation  is  thought  to  have  been  car- 
ried too  far.  What  the  author  sees  cause  to  lament, 
is,  that  many  who  acknowledge  this  fact,  and  who  are 
ready  to  lay  unsparing  hands  on  matters  formerly 
established,  would  bind  on  the  church  something  new 
and  needless,  and  likely  to  excite  diversity  of  opinion. 
They  will  do  this  with  good  intentions,  and  without 
being  aw  are  of  the  inconsistency.  In  a  church  having 
the  secular  arm  for  its  support,  what  has  been  men- 
tioned would  be  an  evil:  but  it  must  be  ruinous,  if  it 
should  be  dominant  in  a  church  so  much  acted  on  as 
ours  by  opinion  of  persons  of  all  degrees  in  hfe,  under 
an  organization  as  it  were  of  yesterday,  and  there- 
fore not  having  the  support  of  habitual  submission 
to  its  decisions.  In  these  circumstances,  independ- 
ently on  other  considerations,  there  is  a  call  to  the 
acquii'ing  of  a  w^eight  of  religious  character,  not  only 
in  tlie  episcopacy,  but  in  the  other  clergy,  and  in  the 
lay  gentlemen,  to  whom  may  be  committed  the  im- 
portant work  of  making  changes  in  ecclesiastical  in- 


319 

stitutions.  Even  with  the  advantage  of  such  a  char- 
acter, let  tliem  be  aware  of  the  truth  of  the  maxim, 
that  one  property  of  the  art  of  governing,  is  the  taking 
of  care  not  to  govern  too  much.* 

6thly.  The  last  contemplated  improvement,  is  the 
suggesting  of  the  hope,  that  the  time  which  has  been 
spent,  and  the  cares  and  the  labours  which  have  been 
bestowed,  by  some  who  have  gone  to  their  rest  from 
their  labours,  and  by  others  who  have  still  on  their 
hands  a  part  of  their  work  to  be  performed,  will  be 
applied  to  the  proper  end — the  promoting  of  truth 
and  godliness.  In  every  age  of  the  world,  there  is 
open  a  wide  field  for  exertions  to  this  effect;  but  the 
remark  applies  especially  to  the  present  period,  in 
which  there  have  occurred  extraordinary  and  suc- 
cessful exertions,  for  the  propagation  of  the  gospel: 

*  During  the  convention  of  1789,  and  while  they  were  en- 
gaged in  the  review  of  the  book  of  Common  Prayer,  a  lady  of  ex- 
cellent understanding,  being  often  in  the  way  of  hearing  the  sub- 
ject discussed  by  some  members  of  the  body,  addressed  them  to 
the  following  effect — "  When  I  hear  these  things,  I  look  back  to 
the  origin  of  the  prayer  book:  and  I  represent  to  my  mind  the 
venerable  compilers  of  it,  ascending  to  heaven  in  the'  flames 
which  consumed  their  bodies.  I  then  look  at  the  improvers  of 
this  book  in"— (naming  some  gentlemen  not  wanting  in  respect- 
ability, but  very  little  furnished  with  theological  knowledge.) 
"  The  consequence  is,  gentlemen,  that  I  am  not  sanguine  in  my 
expectations  of  respect  to  be  paid  to  your  meditated  changes  in 
the  liturgy."  "VVitliout  raising  any  question  concerning  the  logic 
of  this  speech,  can  there  be  a  doubt  with  those  who  know  human 
nature,  that  something  like  it  is  the  language  of  many  a  heart  in 
the  religious  world,  on  the  introduction  of  any  novelty  of  which 
the  propriety  may  be  doubtful? 


320 

partly  produced  by  formidable  combinations  lor  the 
destruction  of  it;  which  have  been  overruled  to  events 
in  contrariety  to  the  licentious  principles  taught,  and 
to  the  disorders  which  they  were  intended  to  per- 
petuate. Doubtless,  we  are  to  ascribe  the  issue  to 
the  good  providence  of  God,  who,  in  a  variety  of 
ways,  "  makes  the  wrath  of  man  to  praise  him."  In 
America,  which  lays  open  immense  counti'ies  to  fu- 
ture population  and  culture,  the  incitement  apphes 
with  extraordinary  stress  of  argument:  and  while  it 
should  prompt  all  the  members  of  this  church  to  put 
forth  their  best  endeavours,  each  man  in  his  sphere, 
and  according  to  his  ability;  it  admonishes  him,  to  be 
himself  in  the  consistent  profession,  in  the  practice 
of  the  duties,  and  in  possession  of  the  consolations  of 
the  gospel:  without  which,  he  is  not  hkely  to  be  in- 
fluential over  others;  and  if  this  should  happen,  his 
lamp  will  be  without  the  oil,  which  is  necessary  to 
prepare  him  for  the  reception  of  the  spiritual  bride- 
groom. 


3.  AN  APPENDIX 
OF  ORIGINAL  PAPERS. 

No.  1.  p.  61. 

Communication  with  the  court  of  Denmark. 

Copy  of  a  letter  from  John  Adams  Esq.,  to  the  pre- 
sident of  congress,  dated,  tlie  Hague,  April  22,  1784. 

Sir, 

I  received,  sometime  since,  a  letter  from  an  Ame- 
rican gentleman  now  in  London,  a  candidate  for 
orders,  desiring  to  know,  if  American  candidates 
might  have  orders  from  protestant  bishops  on  the 
continent,  and  complaining  that  he  had  been  refused 
by  the  bishop  of  London,  unless  he  would  take  the 
oaths  of  allegiance,  &c. 

Meeting  soon  afterwards  the  Danish  minister,  I 
had  the  curiosity  to  inquire  of  him,  whether  ordina- 
tion might  be  had  in  Denmark.  He  answered  me, 
that  he  knew  not,  but  would  soon  inform  himself  I 
heard  no  more  of  it  until  to  day,  when  the  secretary 
of  his  embassy,  Mr.  De  Rosencrantz  made  me  a  vi- 
sit and  delivered  me  the  papers,  copies  of  which 
are  enclosed. 

Thus,  it  seems,  that  what  I  meant  as  current 
conversation  only,  has  been  made  the  subject  of  the 
deliberation  of  the  government  of  Denmark  andtlieir 

s  s 


dc- 


22 

faculty  of  theology;  which  makes  it  necessary  for  me 
to  transmit  it  to  congress. 

I  am  happy  to  find  the  decision  so  liberal. 
I  have  the  honour  to  be,  &c. 
(Signed.)  J.  Adams. 

Translation  of  a  cofnmunication  of  Mr.  de  St. 
Saphorin,  to  M7\  John  Adams,  dated,  the  Hague, 
Jpril,2\,  1784. 

Mr.  de  St.  Saphorin,  has  the  honour  to  commu- 
nicate to  Mr.  Adams  the  answer  he  has  received  from 
his  excellency  the  count  de  Rosencrone,  privy  coun- 
sellor and  secretary  of  state  for  foreign  affairs  of  his 
Danish  majesty,  relative  to  what  Mr.  Adams  desired 
to  know.  He  shall  be  happy  if  this  answer  should 
be  agreeable  to  him,  as  well  as  to  his  superiors  and 
useful  to  his  fellow-citizens.  He  has  the  honour  to 
assure  him  of  his  respect. 
(Signed,  &c.) 

Translation  of  the  copy  of  an  extract  of  a  letter 

from  his  excellency  the  count  de  Rosencrone^  privy 

counsellor  of  his  majesty  the  king  of  Denmark,  to 

Mr.  de  St.  Saphmin,  envoy  extraordinary  from  his 

majesty  to  the  states  general. 

The  opinion  of  the  theological  faculty  having 
been  taken  on  the  question  made  to  your  excellency 
by  Mr.  Adams,  if  the  American  ministers  of  the 
church  of  England,  can  be  consecrated  here  by  a 
bishop  of  the  Danish  church.'^  I  am  ordered  by  the 
king  to  authorise  you  to  answer,  that  such  an  act 
can  take  place  according  to  the  Danish  rites,  but  for 


323 

the  convenience  of  the  Americans  who  are  supposed 
not  to  know  the  Danish  language,  the  Latin  lan- 
guage will  be  made  use  of  on  the  occasion;  for  the 
rest,  nothing  will  be  exacted  fro«n  the  candidates,  but 
a  profession  conformable  to  the  articles  of  the  Eng- 
lish church,  omitting  the  oath  called  test,  which  pre- 
vents their  being  ordained  by  the  English  bishops. 

Secretary's  Office,  6th  Jlpril,  1785. 
Sir, 

Copies  of  the  enclosed  letters  from  Mr.  John 

Adams,  and  Mr.  de  St.  Saphorin,  upon  the  subject 

of  conferring  holy  orders  agreeably  to  the  principles 

of  the  church  of  England,  w^ere  this  day  received  by 

council;  who  have  been  pleased  to  direct  that  they 

should  be  communicated  to  you. 

I  must  beg  that  they  be  returned  to  this  office, 

as  soon  as  you  may  find  it  convenient,  and  am, 

Sir,  with  the  greatest  respect, 

Your  most  obedient 

Humble  servant, 

(Signed)  J.  Armstrong,  Jr. 

Rev.  Dr.  Wm.  White. 

Atiswer. 
Sir, 

I  request  you  to  present  to  the  honourable  coun- 
cil, my  grateful  sentiments  of  their  polite  attention 
to  the  interests  of  the  episcopal  church,  in  your 
communication  of  this  morning. 

Their  condescension  will  be  an  apology  for  my  trou- 
bling them  with  the  perusal  of  an  act  of  the  Biitish 
parliament,  having  the  same  operation  with  the  libe- 


324 

ral  and  brotherly  proceeding  of  the  Danish  govern- 
ment and  clergy.  And  the  liberty  1  have  taken  may 
hereafter  exempt  some  of  my  brethren,  from  the  sus- 
picion of  having  entered  into  obligations  inconsistent 
with  their  duty  to  their  country. 

But,  sir,  it  would  be  injustice  to  the  episcopal 
church,  were  I  to  neglect  to  inform  the  honourable 
board,  that  I  take  it  to  be  a  general  sentiment,  not 
to  depend  on  any  foreign  authority  for  the  ordination 
of  ministers,  or  for  any  other  matter  appertaining  to 
religion.  As  the  light  in  which  we  shall  hereafter  be 
viewed  by  our  fellow-citizens  must  depend  on  an  ad- 
herence to  the  above  mentioned  principle;  I  take 
the  liberty  to  submit  to  the  honourable  council  two 
printed  accounts  of  proceedings  held  in  this  city  and 
in  New  York. 

With  my  most  dutiful  thanks  to  the  honourable 
board,  and  with  all  due  submission,  I  am,  sir, 

Their  and  your  very  humble  servant, 

Wm.  White. 

£pril6,  17S5. 
J.  Armstrong,  Esq. 

No.  2.  Page  64. 

Communication  of  the  clergy  of  Connectimf,  to  the 
archbishop  of  York. 

New  York,  April  21,  1783. 
My  lord, 

The  clergy  of  Connecticut,  deeply  impressed 
with  anxious  apprehension  of  what  may  be  the  fate 
of  the  church  in  America,  under  the  present  changes 
of  empire  and  policy,  beg  leave  to  embrace  the  ear- 


525 

licst  moment  in  their  power  to  address  your  grace  on 
that  important  subject. 

This  part  oi'  America  is  at  length  dismembered 
from  the  British  empire;  but,  notwithstanding  the 
dissolution  of  our  civil  connexion  with  the  parent 
state,  we  still  hope  to  retain  the  religions  polity;  the 
primitive  and  evangelical  doctrine  and  discipline, 
which,  at  the  relbrmation,  were  restored  and  esta- 
blished in  the  church  of  England.  To  render  that 
poHty  complete,  and  to  provide  for  its  perpetuity  in 
this  country,  by  the  establishment  of  an  Jiinerican 
Episcopate,  has  long  been  an  object  of  anxious  con- 
cern to  us,  and  to  many  of  our  brethren  in  other 
parts  of  this  continent.  The  attainment  of  this  ob- 
ject appears  to  have  been  hitherto  obstructed  by  con- 
siderations of  a  political  nature,  which  we  conceive 
were  founded  in  groundless  jealousies  and  misap- 
prehensions that  can  no  longer  be  supposed  to  exist: 
and  therefore,  whatever  may  be  the  effect  of  inde- 
pendency on  this  countr}',  in  other  respects,  we  pre- 
sume it  will  be  allowed  to  open  a  door  for  renewing 
an  application  to  the  spiritual  governors  of  the 
church  on  this  head;  an  application  which  we  con- 
sider as  not  only  seasonable,  but  more  than  ever  ne- 
cessary at  this  time;  because  if  it  be  now  any  longer 
neglected,  there  is  reason  to  apprehend  that  a  plan 
of  a  very  extraordinary  nature,  lately  formed  and 
published  in  Philadelphia,  may  be  carried  into  exe- 
cution. This  plan  is,  in  brief,  to  constitute  a  nomi- 
nal episcopate  by  the  united  sufiirages  of  presbyters 
and  laymen.  The  peculiar  situation  of  the  episcopal 
churches  in  America,  and  tlie  necessity  of  adopting 


326 

some  speedy  remedy  for  the  want  of  a  regular  epis- 
copate, are  offered,  in  the  pubhcation  here  alkided 
to,  as  reasons  fully  sufficient  to  justify  the  scheme. 
Whatever  influence  this  project  may  have  on  the 
minds  of  the  ignorant  or  unprincipled  part  of  the  lai- 
ty, or  how^ever  it  may,  possibly,  be  countenanced  by 
some  of  the  clergy  in  other  parts  of  the  courtry;  we 
think  it  our  duty  to  reject  such  a  spurious  substitute 
for  episcopacy,  and,  as  far  as  may  be  in  our  power, 
to  prevent  its  taking  effect. 

To  lay  the  foundation,  therefore,  for  a  valid  and 
regular  episcopate  in  America,  we  earnestly  entreat 
your  grace,  that,  in  your  Archi-episcopal  character, 
you  will  espouse  the  cause  of  our  sinking  church; 
and,  at  this  important  crisis,  afford  her  that  relief  on 
which  her  very  existence  depends,  by  consecrating 
a  bishop  for  Connecticut.  The  person,  whom  we 
have  prevailed  upon  to  offer  himself  to  your  grace  for 
that  purpose,  is  the  reverend  doctor  Samuel  Seabury, 
who  has  been  the  society^s  worthy  missionary  for 
many  years.  He  was  born  and  educated  in  Connec- 
ticut— he  is  personally  known  to  us — and  we  believe 
him  to  be  every  way  qualified  for  the  episcopal  of- 
fice, and  for  the  discharge  of  those  duties  peculiar  to 
it,  in  the  present  trying  and  dangerous  times. 

All  the  weighty  considerations  which  concur  to 
enforce  our  request,  are  well  known  to  your  grace: 
we  therefore  forbear  to  enlarge,  lest  we  should  seem 
to  distrust  your  grace's  zeal  in  a  cause  of  such  ac- 
knowledged importance  to  the  interests  of  religion. 
Suffer  us  then  to  rest  in  humble  confidence  that  your 
grace  will  hear  and  grant  our  petition,  and  give  us 


327 

the  consolation  of  receiving,  through  a  clear  and  un- 
interrupted  channel,  an  overseer  in  this  part  of  the 
liouseliokl  of  God. 

That  God  may  continue  your  life  and  health, 
make  you  in  his  providence  an  eminent  instrument 
of  great  and  extensive  usefulness  to  mankind  in  ge- 
neral, a  lasting  blessing  to  the  church  over  which 
you  preside  in  particular;  and  that  the  present  and 
future  sons  of  the  church  in  America  may  have 
cause  to  record  and  peipetuate  your  name  as  their 
friend  and  spiritual  father, — and,  when  your  sacred 
work  is  ended,  that  you  may  find  it  gloriously  re- 
warded, is  and  shall  be  the  devout  prayer  of  the 
clergy  of  Connecticut,  by  whose  order  (in  convention 
assembled)  and  in  w  hose  behalf  this  letter  is  addres- 
sed to  your  grace  by  your  grace's  most  obedient, 
humble  servant, 

(Signed)  Abraham  Jarvis, 

Minister  of  the  Episcopal  church  in  Middle- 
tovm,  and  secretary  to  the  Convention. 

Testimonial. 
Whereas  our  well  beloved  in  Christ,  Samuel 
-Seabury,  doctor  of  divinity,  and  missionary  of  Sta- 
ten-Island  in  this  province,  is  about  to  embark  for 
England,  at  the  earnest  request  of  the  episcopal  cler- 
gy of  Connecticut,  and  for  the  purpose  of  presenting 
himself  a  candidate  for  the  sacred  office  of  a  bishop; 
and  that  when  consecrated  and  admitted  to  the  said 
office,  he  may  return  to  Connecticut,  and  there  ex- 
ercise the  spiritual  powers,  and  discharge  the  duties 
which  are  peculiar  to  the  episcopal  character,  among 


32S 

the  members  of  the  church  of  England,  by  superhi- 
tending  the  clergy,  ordaining  candidates  for  holy  or- 
ders, and  confirming  such  of  the  laity  as  may  chuse 
to  be  confirmed — We  the  subscribers,  desirous  to 
testify  our  hearty  concurrence  in  this  measure,  and 
promote  its  success;  as  well  as  to  declare  the  high 
opinion  we  justly  entertain  of  doctor  Seabury's  learn- 
ing, abilities,  prudence  and  zeal  for  religion,  do  here- 
by certify,  that  we  have  been  personally  and  inti- 
mately acquainted  with  the  said  doctor  Seabury  for 
many  years  past — that  we  believe  him  to  be  every 
way  qualified  for  the  sacred  office  of  a  bishop;  the 
several  duties  of  which  office,  we  are  firmly  per- 
suaded, he  will  discharge  with  honour,  dignity  and 
fidelity,  and  consequently  with  advantage  to  the 
church  of  God. 

And  we  cannot  forbear  to  express  our  most  ear- 
nest wish  that  doctor  Seabury  may  succeed  in  this 
application,  as  it  will  be  the  means  of  preserving  the 
church  of  England  in  America  from  ruin,  and  of 
preventing  many  irregularities  which  we  see  ap- 
proaching, and  which,  if  once  introduced,  no  after 
care  may  be  able  to  reuiove. 

Given  under  our  hands,  at  JVew  York,  this  twenty- 
first  day  of  Jlpril,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thou- 
sand seven  hundred  and  eighty-three. 

Jeremiah  Leamijng,  D.D. 
Charles  Inglis,  D.D. 
Recton'  of  Trinity  church,  JVeio  York, 

Benjamin  Moore,  D.D. 
Assistant  minister  of  Trinity  church, 
JVew  Ym%  and  others. 


329 

Letter  to  the  arclibishop  of  York. 

JVeiv  York,  May  24,  1783. 
My  Lord, 

The  reverend  doctor  Samuel  Seabury  will  have 
the  honour  of  presenting  this  letter  to  your  grace. 
He  goes  to  England,  at  the  request  of  the  episcopal 
clergy  of  Connecticut,  on  business  highly  interesting 
and  important.  They  have  written  on  the  subject  to 
your  grace,  and  also  to  the  archbishop  of  Canterbu- 
ry, and  the  bishop  of  London.  But,  as  they  were 
pleased  to  consult  us  on  the  occasion,  and  to  submit 
what  they  had  written  to  our  inspection,  requesting 
our  concurrence  in  their  application,  their  letters  are 
dated  at  New  York,  and  signed  only  by  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Jarvis,  the  secretary  to  .their  convention,  whom  they 
commissioned  and  sent  here  for  that  purpose. 

The  measure  proposed,  on  this  occasion,  by  our 
brethren  of  Connecticut,  could  not  fail  to  have  our 
hearty  concurrence.  For  we  are  decidedly  of  opi- 
nion, that  no  other  means  can  be  devised  to  preserve 
the  existence  of  the  episcopal  church  in  this  country. 
We  have  therefore  joined  with  Mr.  Jarvis  in  giving 
doctor  Seabury  a  testimonial,  in  which  we  have  brief- 
ly, but  sincerely,  expressed  our  sense  of  his  merit, 
and  our  earnest  wishes  for  the  success  of  his  under- 
taking. 

Should  he  succeed  and  be  consecrated,  he  means 
(with  the  approbation  of  the  society)  to  return  in  the 
character,  and  perform  the  duties  of  a  missionary, 

Tt 


330 

at  New-London  in  Connecticut;  and  on  his  arrival  in 
that  country,  to  make  appHcation  to  the  governor,  in 
hope  of  being  cheerfully  permitted  to  exercise  the 
spiritual  powers  of  his  episcopal  office  there;  in 
which,  we  are  persuaded,  he  will  meet  with  little,  if 
any  opposition.  For  many  persons  of  character  in 
Connecticut,  and  elsewhere,  who  are  not  members 
of  the  episcopal  church,  have  lately  declared  they 
have  no  longer  any  objection  to  an  American  episco- 
pate, now  that  the  independency  of  this  country,  ac- 
knowledged by  Great  Britain,  has  removed  their  ap- 
prehensions of  the  bishops  being  invested  with  a 
share  of  temporal  power  by  the  British  government. 

We  flatter  ourselves  that  any  impediments  to  the 
consecration  of  a  bishop  for  America,  arising  from 
the  peculiar  constitution  of  the  church  of  England, 
may  be  removed  by  the  king's  royal  permission;  and 
we  cannot  entertain  a  doubt  of  his  majesty's  readi- 
ness to  grant  it. 

In  humble  confidence  that  your  grace  will  consi- 
der the  object  of  this  application  as  a  measure  wor- 
thy of  your  zealous  patronage,  we  beg  leave  to  re- 
mind your  grace,  that  several  legacies  have  been,  at 
different  times,  bequeathed  for  the  support  of  bish- 
ops in  America,  and  to  express  our  hopes  that  some 
part  of  those  legacies,  or  of  the  interest  arising  from 
them,  may  be  appropriated  to  the  maintenance  of 
doctor  Seabury,  in  case  he  is  consecrated,  and  settles 
in  America.  We  conceive  that  the  separation  of 
this  country  from  the  parent  state,  can  be  no  rea- 


331' 

sonablo  bar  to  such  appropriation,  nor  invalidate  the 
title  of  American  bishops,  who  derive  their  conse- 
cration from  the  church  of  England,  to  the  benefit 
of  those  legacies.  And  perhaps,  this  charitable  as- 
sistance is  now  more  necessary,  than  it  would  have 
been,  had  not  the  empire  been  dismembered. 

We  take  this  opportunity  to  inform  your  grace, 
that  we  have  consulted  his  excellency,  sir  Guy  Carle- 
ton,  on  the  subject  of  procuring  the  appointment  of  a 
bishop  for  the  province  of  Nova  Scotia,  on  which  he 
has  expressed  to  us  his  entire  approbation,  and  has 
written  to  administration,  warmly  recommending  the 
measure.  We  took  the  liberty,  at  the  same  time,  of 
mentioning  our  worthy  brother,  the  Key.  Dr.  Thom- 
as B.  Chandler,  to  his  excellency,  as  a  person  every 
way  qualified  to  discharge  the  duties  of  the  episcopal 
office  in  that  province,  with  dignity  and  honour.  And 
we  hope  for  your  grace's  approbation  of  what  we 
have  done  in  that  matter,  and  for  the  concurrence 
of  your  influence  with  sir  Guy  Carleton's  recom- 
mendation in  promoting  the  design. 

We  should  have  given  this  inlbrmation  sooner  to 
your  grace,  but  that  we  waited  for  doctor  Seabury's 
departure  for  England,  which  we  considered  as  af^ 
fording  the  best,  and  most  proper  conveyance. 

If  doctor  Chandler  and  doctor  Seabury  should 
both  succeed,  as  we  pray  God  they  may,  we  trust 
that,  with  the  blessing  of  Heaven,  the  episcopal 
church  will  yet  flourish  in  this  western  hemisphere. 


332 

With  the  warmest  sentiments  of  respect  and  es^ 
teem,  we  have  the  honour  to  be. 
My  lord, 

your  grace's  most  dutiful  sons, 

and  obedient,  humble  servants. 
Jeremiah  Leaming,  D.D. 
Charles  Inglis,  D.D. 
Recton'  of  Trinity  church,  JVcmj  York> 

Benjamin  Moore,  D.D. 
Assistant  Minister  of  Trinity  church, 
JVew  York,  and  others. 
His  grace  the  archbishop  of  York. 

No.  3.  Page  85. 

A  letter  from  the  Rev.  Abraham  Jarvis,  in  the 

name  of  the  clergy  of  Connecticut. 

Reverend  sir, 

We  the  clergy  of  Connecticut,  met  at  Woodbury 
in  voluntary  convention,  beg  leave  to  acquaint  you, 
that  a  small  pamphlet  printed  in  Philadelphia  has 
been  transmitted  to  us,  of  which  you  are  said  to  be 
the  author.  This  pamphlet  proposes  a  new  form  of 
government  in  the  episcopal  church,  and  points  at 
the  method  of  erecting  it.  As  the  thirteen  states 
have  now  risen  to  independent  sovereignty,  we  agree 
with  you,  sir,  that  the  chain  which  connected  this 
with  the  mother  church  is  broken;  that  the  American 
church  is  now  left  to  stand  in  its  own  strength — 
and  that  some  change  in  its  regulations  must  in  due 
time  take  place.  But  we  think  it  premature  and  of 
dangerous  consequence,  to  enter  upon  so  capital  a 


333 

business,  till  we  "have  resident  bishops  (if  they  can 
be  obtained)  to  assist  in  the  performance  of  it,  and 
to  form  a  new  union  in  the  American  church,  under 
proper  superiors,  since  its  union  is  now  broken  with 
such  superiors  in  the  British  cluirch.  We  shall  only 
advert  to  such  things  in  the  pamphlet,  as  we  esteem 
of  dangerous  consequence.  You  say  the  conduct 
you  mean  to  recommend,  is  to  include  in  the  propo- 
sed frame  of  government  a  general  approbation  of 
episcopacy,  and  a  declaration  of  an  intention  to  pro- 
cure the  succession  as  soon  as  conveniently  may  be; 
but  in  the  mean  time  to  carry  the  plan  into  effect, 
without  waiting  for  the  succession.  But  why  do  you 
include  a  general  approbation  of  episcopacy,  in  your 
proposed  new  frame  of  government?  not  because  you 
think  bishops  a  constituent  part  of  an  episcopal 
church,  unless  you  conceive  they  derive  their  office 
and  existence  from  the  king's  authority;  for  though 
you  acknowledge  we  cannot  at  present  have  bishops 
here,  and  propose  to  set  up  without  them,  yet  you 
say  no  constitutional  principle  of  our  church  is 
changed  by  the  revolution,  but  what  was  founded  on 
the  authority  of  the  king.  Your  motives  for  the 
above  general  approbation,  seem  indeed  to  be  purely 
political.  One  is,  that  the  general  opinion  of  epis- 
copalians is  in  favour  of  bishops,  and  therefore,  (if 
we  understand  your  reasoning)  it  would  be  impolitic, 
not  to  flatter  them  with  the  hopes  of  it.  Another  rea- 
son is,  that  too  wide  a  deviation  from  the  British 
church  might  induce  future  emigrants  from  thence, 
to  set  up  independent  churches  here.     But  could 


334 

you  have  proposed  to  set  up  the  ministry,  without 
waiting  for  the  succession,  had  you  beheved  the 
episcopal  superiority  to  be  an  ordinance  of  Christ, 
with  the  exclusive  authority  of  ordination  and  go- 
vernment, and  that  it  has  ever  been  so  esteemed  in 
the  purest  ages  of  the  church?  and  yet  we  conceive 
this  to  be  the  sense  of  episcopalians  in  general,  and 
warranted  by  the  constant  practice  of  the  christian 
church,  lie  ally,  sir,  we  think  an  episcopal  church 
without  episcopacy,  if  it  be  not  a  contradiction  in 
terms,  would,  however,  be  a  new  thing  under  the  sun; 
and  yet  the  episcopal  church,  by  the  pamphlet  propo- 
sed to  be  erected,  must  be  in  this  predicament  till  the 
succession  be  obtained.  You  plead  necessity,  how- 
ever, and  argue  that  the  best  writers  in  the  church 
admit  of  presbyterian  ordination,  where  episcopal 
cannot  be  had.  To  prove  this,  you  quote  concessions 
from  the  venerable  Hooker  and  Dr.  Chandler,  which 
their  exuberant  charity  to  the  reformed  churches 
abroad,  led  them  to  make.  But  the  very  words  you 
quote  from  the  last  mentioned  gentleman  prove  his 
opinion  to  be,  that  bishops  w^ere  as  truly  an  ordi- 
nance of  Christ,  and  as  essential  to  his  church  as 
the  sacraments;  for,  say  you,  he  insists  upon  it  (mean- 
ing the  episcopal  superiority,)  as  of  divine  right,  as- 
serts that  the  laws  relating  to  it  bind  as  strongly  as 
the  laws  which  relate  to  baptism  and  the  holy  eu- 
charist,  and  that  if  the  succession  be  once  broken, 
not  all  the  men  on  earth,  not  all  the  angels  in  hea- 
ven, without  an  immediate  commission  from  Christ, 
can  restore  it — but  you  say,  he  does  not,  however. 


hold  this  succession  to  be  necessaiy,  only  where  it 
can  be  had.  Neither  does  he  or  the  christian  church, 
hold  the  sacraments  to  be  necessary,  where  they 
cannot  be  had  agreeable  to  the  appointment  of  the 
great  head  of  the  church.  Why  should  particular  acts 
of  authority  be  thought  more  necessary  than  the  au- 
thority itself?  why  should  the  sacraments  be  more 
essential  than  that  authority  Christ  has  ordained  to 
administer  them?  It  is  true  that  Christ  has  appointed 
the  sacraments,  and  it  is  as  true  that  he  hath  ap- 
pointed officers  to  administer  them,  and  has  express- 
ly forbid  any  to  do  it  but  those  who  are  authoiized 
by  his  appointment,  or  called  of  God  as  was  Aaron. 
And  yet  these  gentlemen  (without  any  inconsistency 
with  their  declared  sentiments)  have,  and  all  good 
men  will  express  their  charitable  hopes  that  God  in 
compassion  to  a  well  meant  zeal,  will  add  the  same 
blessings  to  those  who,  through  unavoidable  mistake, 
act  beside  his  commission,  as  if  they  really  had  it. 
As  far  as  we  can  find,  it  has  been  the  constant  opi- 
nion of  our  church  in  England  and  here,  that  the 
episcopal  superiority  is  an  ordinance  of  Christ,  and 
we  think  that  the  uniform  practice  of  the  whole 
American  church  for  near  a  century,  sending  their 
candidates  three  thousand  miles  for  holy  orders,  is 
more  than  a  presumptive  proof  that  the  church  here 
are  and  ever  have  been  of  this  opinion.  The  sectaries, 
soon  after  the  reformation,  declared  that  the  book  of 
consecration,  &c.,  was  superstitious  and  contrary  to 
God's  word,  and  the  moderation  you  mention  in  the 
articles  and  canons,  consists  in  affirming  that  this 


336 

declaration  was  entirely  false;  and  would  you  wish  to 
be  more  severe?  The  instances  you  adduce,  wherein 
presbyterian  ordination  has  been  tolerated  in  the 
church,  have,  by  its  best  writers,  been  set  in  such  a 
point  of  view  as  to  give  no  countenance  to  your 
scheme,  and  the  authorities  you  quote  have  been  an- 
swered again  and  again.     If  you  will  not  allow  this 
superiority  to  have  an  higher  origin  than  the  Apos- 
tles, yet  since  they  were  divinely  inspired,  we  see 
not  why  their  practice  is  not  equal  to  a  divine  war- 
rant, and  as  they  have  given  no  liberty  to  deviate 
from  their  practice  in  any  exigence  of  the  church, 
we  know  not  what  authority  we  have  to  take  such 
liberties  in  any  case.     However,  we  think  nothing 
can  be  more  clear,  than  that  our  church  has  ever 
believed  bishops  to  have  the  sole  right  of  ordination 
and  government,  and  that  this  regimen  was  appoint- 
ed of  Christ  himself,  and  it  is  now,  to  use  your  own 
words,  humbly  submitted  to  consideration,  whether 
such  episcopalians  as  consent  even  to  a  temporary 
departure,  and  set  aside  this  ordinance  of  Christ  for 
conveniency,  can  scarcely  deserve  the  name  of  Chris- 
tians. But  would  necessity  warrant  a  deviation  from 
the  law  of  Christ,  and  the  immemorial  practice  of 
the  church,  yet  what  necessity  have  we  to  plead.** 
Can  we  plead  necessity  with  any  propriety,  till  we 
have  tried  to  obtain  an  episcopate,  and  have  been 
rejected.^  We  conceive  the  present  to  be  a  more  fa- 
vourable opportunity  for  the  introduction  of  bishops, 
than  this  country  has  before  seen.     However  dan- 
gerous bishops  formerly  might  have  been  thought  to 


337 

tlie  civil  rights  of  these  states,  this  danger  has  now 
vanished,  for  such  superiors  will  have  no  civil  autho- 
rity.    They  will  be  purely  ecclesiastics.  The  states 
have  now  risen  to  sovereign  authority,  and  bishops 
will  be  equally  under  the  control  of  civil  law  with 
other  clergymen;  no  danger,  then,  can  now  be  feared 
from  bishops,  but  such  as  may  be  feared  from  pres- 
byters.   This  being  the  case,  have  we  not  the  high- 
est reason  to  hope,  that  the  whole  civil  authority 
upon  the  continent,  (should  their  assistance  be  need- 
ed) will  unite  their  influence  with  the  church,  to  pro- 
cure an  office  so  essential  to  it,  and  to  render  complete 
a  profession,  which  contains  so  considerable  a  propor- 
tion of  its  inhabitants.     And  on  the  other  hand,  is 
there  any  reason  to  believe,  that  all  the  bishops  in 
England,  and  in  all  the  other  reformed  churches  in 
Europe,  are  so  totally  lost  to  a  sense  of  their  duty,  and 
to  the  real  wants  of  their  brethren  in  the  episcopal 
church  here,  as  to  refuse  to  ordain  bishops  to  preside- 
over  us,  when  a  proper  application  shall  be  made  to 
them  for  it?     If  this  cannot  be,  why  is  not  the  pre- 
sent a  favourable  opportunity  for  such  an  applica- 
tion? Nothing  is  further  from  the  design  of  this  letter 
than  to  begin  a  dispute  with  you;  but  in  a  frank  and 
brotherly  way  to  express  our  opinion  of  the  mistaken 
and  dangerous  tendency  of  the  pamphlet.  We  fear, 
should  the  scheme  of  it  be  carried  into  execution  in 
the  southern  states,  it  will  create  divisions  in  the 
church  at  a  time^  when  its  whole  strength  depends 
upon  its  unity:  for  we  know  it  is  totally  abhorrent  from 
the  principles  of  the  church  in  the  northern  states,  and 

u  u 


338 

are  fully  convinced  they  will  never  submit  to  it.  And 
indeed  should  we  consent  to  a  temporary  departure 
from  episcopacy,  there  would  be  veiy  little  propriety 
in  asking  for  it  afterwards,  and  as  little  reason  ever 
to  expect  it  in  America.  Let  us  all  then  unite  as  one 
man  to  imprc'e  this  favourable  opportunity,  to  pro- 
cure an  object  so  desirable  and  so  essential  to  the 
church. 

We  are,  dear  sir,  your  affectionate  brethren,  the 
clergy  of  Connecticut. 

Signed  by  order  of  the  convention, 

Abraham  Jarvis,  Sect'y. 
Rev.  Mr.  White. 

iVoodbury,  March  25,  1783. 

No.  4.  Page  99. 

A  letter  of  the  Rt.  Rev.  bishop  Seabury,  to  the  Rev. 
,  Dr.  Smith. 

August  15,  1785. 
Rev.  and  dear  sir. 

It  has  not  been  in  my  power  till  this  day,  to  pay 
that  attention  to  your  letter  of  July  19,  which  the 
importance  of  its  several  subjects  demanded.  The 
grand  difficulty  that  defeated  my  application  for  con- 
secration in  England,  appeared  to  me  to  be  the  want 
of  an  application  from  the  state  of  Connecticut. 
Other  objections  are  made,  viz.,  that  there  was  no 
precise  diocess  marked  out  by  the  civil  authority, 
nor  a  stated  revenue  appointed  for  the  bishop's  sup- 
port: but  these  were  removed.  The  other  remained, 
for  the  civil  authority  in  Connecticut  is  presbyterian, 


339 

and  tliercfore  conlrl  not  be  supposed  would  petitiou 
for  a  bishop:  and  had  this  been  removed,  T  am  not 
sure  that  another  would  not  have  started  up:  for 
this  happened  several  times.  I  waited  and  procured 
a  copy  of  an  act  of  the  legislature  of  Connecticut, 
which  puts  all  denominations  of  Christians  on  a  foot- 
insj  of  equality,  except  the  Roman  Catholics,  and  to 
them  it  gives  a  free  toleration,  certified  by  the  secre- 
tary of  the  state:  for  to  Connecticut  all  my  negotia- 
tions were  confined.  The  archbishop  of  Canterbury 
wished  it  had  been  fuller,  but  thought  it  afforded 
ground  on  which  to  proceed,  yet  he  afterwards  said 
it  would  not  do;  and  that  the  minister,  without  a  for- 
mal requisition  from  the  state,  would  not  suffer  the 
bill,  enabling  the  bishop  of  London  to  ordain  foreign 
candidates  without  their  taking  the  oaths,  to  pass 
the  commons,  if  it  contained  a  clause  for  consecrating 
American  bishops.  And  as  his  grace  did  not  choose 
to  proceed  without  parliamentary  authority,  though 
if  I  understood  him  right,  a  majority  of  the  judges 
and  crown  lawyers,  were  of  opinion  he  might  safely  do 
it.  I  turned  my  attention  to  the  remains  of  the  old 
Scots  episcopal  church,  whose  consecration  T  knew 
was  derived  from  England,  and  their  authority  in 
an  ecclesiastical  sense,  fully  equal  to  the  English 
bishops.  No  objection  was  ever  made  to  me  on  ac- 
count of  the  legacies  left  for  American  bishops:  some 
people  had  surmises  of  this  kind,  but  I  know  not 
whence  they  arose. 

I  can  see  no  good  ground  of  apprehension  con- 
cerning the  titles  of  estates,  or  emoluments  belonging^ 


340 

to  the  church  in  your  state:  your  church  is  still  the 
church  of  England,  subsisting  under  a  different  civil 
government.  We  have  in  America  the  church  of 
Holland,  of  Scotland,  of  Sweden,  of  Moravia,  and 
why  not  of  England?  Our  being  of  the  church  of 
England,  no  more  implies  dependence  on  or  sub- 
jection to  England,  than  being  of  the  church  of  Hol- 
land implies  subjection  to  Holland.  The  plea  of  the 
Methodists  is  something  like  impudence.  Mr.  Wesley 
is  only  a  presbyter,  and  all  his  ordinations  presbyte- 
rian,  and  in  direct  opposition  to  the  church  of  Eng- 
land. And  they  can  have  no  pretence  for  calling 
themselves  churchmen,  till  they  return  to  the  unity 
of  the  church,  which  they  have  unreasonably,  unne- 
cessarily and  wickedly  broken,  by  their  separation 
and  schism. 

Your  two  cautions,  respecting  recommendations 
and  titles,  are  certainly  just.  Till  you  are  so  hap- 
py as  to  have  a  bishop  of  your  own,  it  will  be  a  plea- 
sure to  me  to  do  any  thing  I  can,  for  the  supply  of 
your  churches.  And  I  am  confident  the  clergy  of 
Maryland  and  the  other  states,  will  be  very  particular 
with  regard  to  the  qualifications  and  titles  of  persons 
to  be  admitted  into  their  own  order.  Should  they 
think  proper  to  send  any  candidates  hither,  I  would 
wish  that  it  might  be  at  the  stated  times  of  ordina- 
tion ;  because  the  clergy  here  being  so  scattered,  it  is 
not  easy  on  every  emergency  to  get  three  of  them 
together;  and  never  without  some  expense,  which 
they  cannot  well  afford.  I  cannot  omit  to  mention 
again  the  particular  satisfaction  Mr.  Ferguson  gave. 


341 

not  only  to  me,  but  to  all  our  clergy.  I  hope  he  will 
prove  a  worthy  and  useful  clergyman.  I  flatter  my- 
self he  got  home  without  any  disagreeable  accident. 

I  thank  you  for  your  communication  respecting 
Washington  college,  and  the  various  conventions  you 
have  had  in  your  state  and  neighbourhood.  The 
clergy  and  laity  have  particular  merit  in  making  so 
great  exertions,  to  get  our  church  into  a  settled  and 
respectable  state.  But  on  subjects  of  such  magnitude 
and  variety,  it  is  to  be  expected  that  sentiments  will 
differ.  All  men  do  not  always  see  the  same  object  in 
the  same  light:  and  persons  at  a  distance  are  not 
always  masters  of  the  precise  reasons  and  circumstan- 
ces, which  have  occasioned  particular  modes  of  acting. 
Of  some  things  therefore  in  your  proceedings  I  can- 
not be  a  competent  judge,  without  minute  informa- 
tion ;  and  I  am  very  sorry  that  my  present  circum- 
stances and  duty  here,  will  not  permit  me  to  make 
so  long  a  journey  at  this  time;  because  by  personal 
interview  and  conversation  only,  can  such  informa- 
tion be  had. 

But,  my  dear  sir,  there  are  some  things  which, 
if  I  do  not  much  misapprehend,  are  really  wrong. 
In  giving  my  opinion  of  them,  I  must  claim  the  same 
privilege  of  judging  for  myself  which  others  claim, 
and  also  that  right  of  fair  and  candid  interpretation 
of  my  sentiments  which  is  due  to  all  men. 

1.  I  think  you  have  done  wrong  in  establishing 
so  many  and  so  precise  fundamental  rules.  You 
seem  hereby  to  have  precluded  yourselves  from  the 
benefit  of  after  consideration.     And  by  having  the 


34S 


power  of  altering  fundamental  laws  diffused  through 
so  large  a  body,  it  appears  to  me  next  to  impossible 
to  have  them  altered,  even-  in  some  reasonable  cases; 
because  cases  really  reasonable  may  not  appear  so 
to  two  thirds  of  so  large  an  assembly.  It  should  also 
be  remembered,  that  while  human  nature  is  as  it 
is,  something  of  party  passion  or  partiality  will  ever 
be  apt,  in  some  degree,  to  influence  the  views  and 
debates  of  a  numerous  and  mixed  assembly. 

2.  I  think  you  have  too  much  circumscribed  the 
power  of  your  bishops.  That  the  duty  and  office  of  a 
bishop  differs  in  nothing  from  that  of  other  priests, 
except  in  the  power  of  ordination  and  confirmation, 
(Pamph.  p.  16.)  is  a  position  that  carries  Jerom's 
opinion  to  the  highest  pitch.  Quid  facit  episcopus 
quod  presbyter  nonfaciat,  excepta  ordinatione?  But 
it  does  not  appear  that  Jerom  had  the  support  of 
the  church  in  this  opinion,  but  rather  the  contrary. 
Government  as  essentially  pertains  to  bishops  as  or- 
dination; nay  ordination  is  but  the  particular  exercise 
of  government.  Whatever  share  of  government  pres- 
byters have  in  the  church,  they  have  from  the  bish- 
op, and  must  exercise  it  in  conjunction  with  or  in 
subordination  to  him.  And  though  a  congregation 
may  have  a  right,  and  I  am  willing  to  allow  it,  to 
choose  their  minister,  as  they  are  to  support  him 
and  live  under  his  ministry,  yet  the  bishop's  concur- 
rence or  license  is  necessary,  because  they  are  part 
of  his  charge;  has  the  care  of  their  souls;  and  there- 
fore the  minister's  authority  to  take  charge  of  that 
congregation  must  come  through  the  bishop. 


34S 

The  choice  of  the  bishop  is  in  the  presbyters;  but 
the  «eighl)ouring  bishops  who  are  to  consecrate  him 
must  have  the  ri^ht  of  judging  whether  he  be  a  j)ro- 
per  person  or  not.  The  presbyters  are  the  bishop's 
council,  witli  whom  lie  ouglit  to  do  nothing  but  mat- 
ters of  course.  The  presbyters  have  always  a  check 
upon  their  bishop;  because  they  can,  neither  bishop 
nor  presbyters,  do  any  thing  bejond  the  common 
course  of  duty,  without  each  other.  I  mean  with  re- 
gard to  a  particular  diocess;  for  it  does  not  appear 
that  presbyters  had  any  seat  in  general  councils,  but 
by  particular  indulgence. 

The  people,  being  the  patrons  of  the  churches  in 
this  country  and  having  the  means  of  the  bishop's  and 
minister's  support  in  their  hands,  have  a  sufficient 
restraint  upon  them.  In  cases  that  require  it,  they 
can  apply  to  their  bishop,  who,  with  the  assistance 
of  his  presbyters,  will  proceed,  as  the  case  may  re- 
quire, to  censure,  suspension,  or  deposition  of  the  of- 
fending clergyman.  If  a  bishop  behaves  amiss,  the 
neighbouring  bishops  are  his  judges.  Men  that  are 
not  to  be  trusted  with  these  powers  are  not  fit  to  be 
bishops  or  presbyters  at  all. 

This,  I  take  it,  is  the  constitution  of  the  christian 
church,  in  its  pure  and  simple  state.  And  it  is  a  con- 
stitution which,  if  adhered  to,  will  carry  itself  into 
good  effect.  This  constitution  we  have  adopted  in 
Connecticut;  and  we  do  hope  and  trust  that  we  shall, 
by  God's  grace,  exhibit  to  the  world,  in  our  govern- 
ment, discipline  and  order,  a  pure  and  perfect  model 
of  primitive  simplicity. 


344 

Presbyters  cannot  be  too  careful  in  choosing 
their  bishop;  nor  the  people  in  choosing  their  minis- 
ter. Improper  men  may,  however,  sometimes  suc- 
ceed ;  and  so  they  will,  make  exact  rules  as  you  can 
and  circumscribe  their  power  as  you  can.  And  an 
improper  man  in  the  chuch  is  an  improper  man, 
however  he  came  there,  and  however  his  power  be 
limited.  The  more  you  circumscribe  him,  the  great- 
er temptation  he  is  under  to  form  a  party  to  support 
him;  and  when  his  party  is  formed,  all  the  power  of 
your  convention  will  not  be  able  to  displace  him.  In 
short,  if  you  get  a  bad  man,  your  laws  and  regula- 
tions will  not  be  effectual;  if  a  good  man,  the  general 
laws  of  the  church  are  sufficient. 

Where  civil  states  have  made  provision  for  mi- 
nisters, it  seems  reasonable  that  they  should  define 
the  qualifications  and  regulate  the  conduct  of  those 
who  are  to  enjoy  the  emoluments.  But  voluntary  as- 
sociations for  the  exercise  of  such  powers  as  your 
convention  is  to  have,  are  always  apt,  such  is  the 
infirmity  of  human  nature,  to  fall  into  parties;  and 
when  party  enters,  animosity  and  discord  soon  follow. 
From  what  has  been  said,  you  will  suppose  I  shall 
object, 

3.  To  the  admission  of  lay  members  into  synods, 
&c.  I  have  as  great  a  regard  for  the  laity  as  any 
man  can  have.  It  is  for  their  sake  that  ministers  are 
appointed  in  the  church.  I  have  no  idea  of  aggran- 
dizing the  clergy  at  the  expense  of  the  laity;  nor  in- 
deed of  aggrandizing  them  at  all.  Decent  means  of 
living  is  all  they  have  a  right  to  expect.  But  I  cannot 


345 

conceive  that  the  laity  can,  with  any  propriety,  be  ad- 
mitted to  sit  in  judgment  on  bishops  and  presbyters; 
especially  when  deposition  may  be  the  event;  because 
they  cannot  take  away  a  character  which  they  can- 
not confer.  It  is  incongruous  to  every  idea  of 
episcopal  government.  That  authority  which  confers 
power,  can,  for  proper  reasons,  take  it  away.  But 
where  there  is  no  authority  to  confer  power,  there 
can  be  none  to  disannul  it.  Wherever  therefore  the 
power  of  ordination  is  lodged,  the  power  of  depriva- 
tion is  lodged  also. 

Should  it  be  thought  necessary  that  the  laity 
should  have  a  share  in  the  choice  of  their  bishop,  if 
it  can  be  put  on  a  proper  footing,  so  as  to  avoid  par- 
ty and  confusion,  I  see  not  but  that  it  might  be  ad- 
mitted. But  I  do  not  apprehend  that  this  was  the 
practice  of  the  primitive  church.  In  short,  the  rights 
of  the  Christian  church  arise  not  from  nature  or 
compact,  but  from  the  institution  of  Christ;  and 
we  ought  not  to  alter  them,  but  to  receive  and  main- 
tain them  as  the  holy  Apostles  left  them.  The  go- 
vernment, sacraments,  faith  and  doctrine  of  the 
church,  are  fixed  and  settled.  We  have  a  right  to  ex- 
amine wlmt  they  are,  but  we  must  take  them  as  they 
are.  If  we  new  model  the  government,  why  not  the 
sacraments,  creeds  and  doctrines  of  the  church.^  But 
then  it  would  not  be  Christ's  chm'ch,  but  our 
church,  and  would  remain  so,  call  it  by  what  name 
we  please. 

I  do  therefore  beseech  the  clergy  and  laity,  who 
shall  meet  at  Philadelphia,  to  re-consider  the  matter, 

X  X 


346 

before  a  final  step  be  taken:  and  to  endeavour  to 
bring  their  church  government  as  near  to  the  primi- 
tive pattern  as  may  be.  They  will  find  it  the  simplest 
and  most  easy  to  carry  into  effect;  and  if  it  be  adlier- 
ed  to,  will  be  in  no  danger  of  sinking  or  failing. 

I  do  not  think  it  necessary  that  the  church,  in  every 
state,  should  be  just  as  the  church  in  Connecticut  is; 
though  I  think  that  the  best  model.  Particular  cir- 
cumstances, I  know,  will  call  for  particular  conside- 
rations. But  in  so  essential  a  matter  as  church  go- 
vernment is,  no  alteration  should  be  made  to  affect 
its  foundation.  If  a  man  be  called  a  bishop  who  has 
not  the  episcopal  power  of  government,  he  is  called 
by  a  vn'ong  name,  even  though  he  should  have  the 
power  of  ordination  and  confirmation. 

Let  me  therefore  again  entreat,  that  such  mate- 
rial alterations,  and  forgive  me  if  I  say  unjustifiable 
ones,  may  not  be  made  in  the  government  of  the 
Church.  1  have  written  freely  as  becomes  an  ho- 
nest man;  and  in  a  case  which  I  think  calls  for  free- 
dom of  sentiment  and  expression.  I  wish  not  to  give 
offence,  and  I  hope  none  will  be  taken.  Whatever 
I  can  do  consistently  to  assist  in  procuring  bishops 
in  America,  I  shall  do  cheerfully,  but  beyond  that  I 
cannot  go;  and  I  am  sure  neither  you,  nor  any  of 
the  friends  of  the  Church,  would  wish  I  should. 

If  any  expression  in  this  letter  should  seem  too 
warm,  I  will  be  ready  to  correct  the  mode,  but  the 
sentiments  I  must  retain  till  I  find  them  wrong,  and 
then  I  will  freely  give  them  up.  In  this  matter  1  am 
not  interested;  my  ground  is  taken,  and  I  wish  not  to 


347 

extend  my  authority  beyond  its  proper  limits.  But 
I  do  most  earnestly  wishto  liave  our  churches  in  all 
the  states  so  settled,  that  it  may  be  one  church  uni- 
ted in  government,  doctrine,  and  discipline — that 
there  may  be  no  division  among  us — no  opposition 
of  interests — no  clashing  of  opinions.  And  permit  me 
to  hope  that  you  will,  at  your  approaching  conven- 
tion, so  far  recede  in  the  points  I  have  mentioned, 
as  to  make  this  practicable.  Your  convention  will 
be  large  and  very  much  to  be  respected.  Its  deter- 
minations will  influence  many  of  the  American  states, 
and  posterity  will  be  materially  affected  by  them. 

These  considerations  are  so  many  arguments 
for  calm  and  cool  deliberation.  Human  passions  and 
prejudices,  and  if  possible,  infirmities,  should  be  laid 
aside.  A  wrong  step  will  be  attended  with  dread- 
ful consequences.  Patience  and  prudence  must  be 
exercised.  And  should  there  be  some  circumstances 
that  press  hard  for  a  remedy,  hasty  decisions  will  not 
mend  them.  In  doubtful  cases  they  will  probably 
have  a  bad  effect. 

May  the  spirit  of  God  be  with  you  at  Philadelphia, 
and  as  I  persuade  myself"  the  sole  good  of  his  church 
is  the  sole  aim  of  you  all,  I  hope  for  the  best  effects 
from  your  meeting. 

I  send  you  the  alterations  which  it  has  been  here 
thought  proper  to  make  in  the  liturgy,  to  accommo- 
date it  to  the  civil  constitution  of  this  state.  You  will 
observe,  that  there  is  no  collect  for  the  congress.  We 
have  no  backwardness  in  that  respect,  but  thought 
it  our  duty  to  know  whether  the  civil  authority  in 


348 

this  state  has  any  directions  to  give  in  that  matter; 
and  that  cannot  be  known  till  their  next  meeting  in 
October. 

Some  other  alterations  were  proposed^  of  which 
Mr.  Ferguson  took  a  copy;  and  I  would  send  you  a 
copy  had  I  time  to  transcribe  it. 

The  matter  will  be  resumed  at  N.  Haven  the 
11th  of  September.  Should  we  come  to  any  deter- 
mination, the  brethren  to  the  southward  shall  be  in- 
formed of  it. 

With  my  best  regards  to  the  convention  and  to 
you,  I  remain  your  affectionate  humble  servant, 
(Signed.)  Samuel. 

Bishop  of  the  Episcopal  church  in  Connecticut. 

I  have  taken  the  liberty  to  enclose  a  copy  of  my 
letters  of  consecration,  which  you  will  please  to  com- 
municate to  the  convention ;  you  will  also  perceive  it 
to  be  my  wish  that  this  letter  should  be  communica- 
ted to  them;  to  which,  I  presume,  there  can  be  no 
objection. 

No.  5.  p.  101. 

Address  of  the  Convention  of  1785,  to  the  English 
Prelates. 
To  the  Most  Reverend  and  Right  Reverend  the 
Archbisliops  of  Canterbury  and  York,  and  the  Bish- 
ops of  tJie  Church  of  England. 

We,  the  clerical  and  lay  deputies  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  church  in  sundry  of  the  United  States  of 
America,  think  it  our  duty  to  address  your  lordships 
on  a  subject  deeply  interesting,  not  only  to  ourselves 


349 

and  those  whom  we  represent,  but,  as  we  conceive,  to 
the  common  cause  of  Christianity. 

Our  forefathers,  when  they  left  the  land  of  their 
nativity,  did  not  leave  the  bosom  of  that  church,  over 
which  your  lordships  now  preside;  but,  as  well  from 
a  veneration  for  Episcopal  government,  as  from  an 
attachment  to  the  admirable  services  of  our  liturgy, 
continued  in  willing  connection  with  their  Ecclesias- 
tical superiors  in  England,  and  were  subjected  to 
many  local  inconveniencies,  rather  than  break  the 
unity  of  the  church  to  which  they  belonged. 

When  it  pleased  the  Supreme  Ruler  of  the  uni- 
verse, that  this  part  of  the  British  empire  should  be 
free,  sovereign  and  independent,  it  became  the  most 
important  concern  of  the  members  of  our  communion 
to  provide  for  its  continuance.  And  while,  in  accom- 
plishing this,  they  kept  in  view  that  wise  and  liberal 
part  of  the  system  of  the  church  of  England,  which 
excludes  as  well  the  claiming  as  the  ackjiowledging 
of  such  spiritual  subjection  as  may  be  inconsistent 
with  the  civil  duties  of  her  children;  it  was  never- 
theless their  earnest  desire  and  resolution  to  retain 
the  venerable  form  of  episcopal  government,  handed 
down  to  them,  as  they  conceived,  from  the  time  of  the 
apostles:  and  endeared  to  them  by  the  remembrance 
of  the  holy  bishops  of  the  primitive  church,  of  the 
blessed  martyrs  who  reformed  the  doctrine  and  wor- 
ship of  the  church  of  England,  and  of  the  many  great 
and  pious  prelates  who  have  adorned  that  church  in 
every  succeeding  age.  But  however  general  the  de- 
sire of  completing  the  orders  of  our  ministry,  so 
diffused  and  unconnected  were  the  members  of  our 


350 

communion  over  this  extensive  country,  that  much 
time  and  negotiation  were  necessary  for  the  forming 
of  a  representative  body  of  the  greater  number  of  the 
episcopahans  in  these  States;  and  owing  to  the  same 
causes,  it  was  not  until  this  convention,  that  sufficient 
powers  could  be  procured  for  the  addressing  of  your 
lordships  on  this  subject. 

The  petition  which  we  offer  to  your  venerable 
body,  is — that  from  a  tender  regard  to  the  religious 
interests  of  thousands  in  this  rising  empire,  professing 
the  same  religious  principles  with  the  church  of  En- 
gland, you  will  be  pleased  to  confer  the  episcopal 
character  on  such  persons  as  shall  be  recommended 
by  this  church  in  the  several  States  here  represented: 
full  satisfaction  being  given  of  the  sufficiency  of  the 
persons  recommended,  and  of  its  being  the  intention 
of  the  general  body  of  the  episcopalians  in  the  said 
States  respectively,  to  receive  them  in  the  quality  of 
bishops. 

Whether  this  our  request  will  meet  with  insur- 
mountable impediments,  from  the  political  regulations 
of  the  kingdom  in  which  your  lordships  fill  such  dis- 
tinguished stations,  it  is  not  for  us  to  foresee.  We 
have  not  ascertained,  that  any  such  will  exist;  and  are 
humbly  of  opinion,  that  as  citizens  of  these  States, 
interested  in  their  prosperity,  and  religiously  regard- 
ing the  allegiance  which  we  owe  them,  it  is  to  an  ec- 
clesiastical source  only,  we  can  apply  in  the  present 
exigency. 

It  may  be  of  consequence  to  observe,  that  in  these 
states  there  is  a  separation  between  the  concerns  of 
policy,  and  those  of  religion;  that  accordingly,  our 


351 

civil  rulers  cannot  officially  join  in  the  present  appli- 
cation; that,  however,  we  are  far  from  apprehending 
the  opposition  or  even  displeasure  of  any  of  those 
honorable  personages;  and  finally,  that  in  this  busi- 
ness we  are  justified  by  the  constitutions  of  the  states, 
which  are  the  foundations  and  control  of  all  our 
laws.  On  this  point,  we  beg  leave  to  refer  to  the  en- 
closed extracts  from  the  constitutions  of  the  respec- 
tive states  of  which  we  are  citizens,  and  we  flatter 
ourselves  that  they  must  be  satisfactory. 

Thus,  we  have  stated  to  your  lordships  the  nature 
and  the  grounds  of  our  application;  which  we  have 
thought  it  most  respectful  and  most  suitable  to  the 
magnitude  of  the  object,  to  address  to  your  lordships 
for  your  deliberation,  before  any  person  is  sent  over 
to  carry  them  into  effect.  Whatever  may  be  the  event, 
no  time  will  efface  the  remembrance  of  the  past  ser- 
vices of  your  lordships  and  your  predecessors.  The 
archbishops  of  Canterbury  w'ere  not  prevented,  even 
by  the  weighty  concerns  of  their  high  stations,  from 
attending  to  the  interests  of  this  distant  branch  of 
the  church  under  their  care.  The  bishops  of  London 
were  our  diocesans:  and  the  uninterrupted,  although 
voluntary  submission  of  our  congregations,  will  re- 
main a  perpetual  proof  of  their  mild  and  paternal 
government.  All  the  bishops  of  England,  with  other 
distinguished  characters,  as  well  ecclesiastical  as  civil, 
have  concurred  in  forming  and  carrying  on  the  be- 
nevolent views  of  the  society  for  propagating  the  gos- 
pel in  foreign  parts;  a  society  to  whom,  under  God, 
the  prosperity  of  our  church  is  in  an  eminent  d  gree 
to  be  ascribed.  It  is  our  earnest  wish  to  be  permitted 


352 

to  make,  through  your  lordships,  this  just  acknow- 
ledgment to  that  venerable  society;  a  tribute  of  grati- 
tude which  we  the  rather  take  this  opportunity  of 
paying,  as  while  they  thought  it  necessary  to  with- 
draw their  pecuniary  assistance  from  our  ministers, 
they  have  endeared  their  past  favors  by  a  benevolent 
declaration,  that  it  is  far  from  their  thoughts  to  alien- 
ate their  affection  from  their  brethren  now  under  an- 
other government;  with  the  pious  wish,  that  their 
former  exertions  may  still  continue  to  bring  forth  the 
fruits  they  aimed  at  of  pure  religion  and  virtue.  Our 
heaits  are  penetrated  with  the  most  lively  gratitude 
by  these  generous  sentiments;  the  long  succession  of 
former  benefits  passes  in  review  before  us;  we  pray 
that  our  church  may  be  a  lasting  monument  of  the 
usefulness  of  so  worthy  a  body;  and  that  her  sons 
may  never  cease  to  be  kindly  affectioned  to  the  mem- 
bers of  that  church,  the  fathers  of  which  have  so 
tenderly  watched  over  her  infancy. 

For  your  lordships  in  particular,  we  most  sincere- 
ly wish  and  pray,  that  you  may  long  continue  the  or- 
naments of  the  church  of  England,  and  at  last  receive 
the  reward  of  the  righteous  from  the  great  Shepherd 
and  Bishop  of  souls. 

We  are,  with  all  the  respect  which  is  due  to  your 
exalted  and  venerable  characters  and  stations, 
Your  Lordships 

Most  obedient,  and 

hi  Convention.  Most  humble  servants,* 

Christ  Church,  Philadelphia,  October  5th,  1785. 

*  Signed  by  all  the  members. 


353 

The  preceding  address  and  consequent  measures 
for  obtaining  the  episcopacy,  were  contemplated  by 
the  following  plan  of  the  convention  recorded  on 
their  journal.     Ordered: 

First,  That  this  convention  address  the  arch- 
bishops and  bishops  of  the  church  of  England,  re- 
questing them  to  confer  the  episcopal  character  on 
such  persons  as  shall  be  chosen  and  recommended 
to  them  for  that  purpose,  from  the  conventions  of  this 
church  in  the  respective  states. 

Secondly,  That  it  be  recommended  to  the  said 
conventions,  that  they  elect  persons  for  this  purpose. 

Thirdly,  That  it  be  further  recommended  to  the 
different  conventions,  at  their  next  respective  ses- 
sions, to  appoint  committees,  with  powers  to  corres- 
pond with  the  English  bishops  for  the  carrying  of 
these  resolutions  into  effect;  and  that,  until  such  com- 
mittees shall  be  appointed,  they  be  requested  to  direct 
any  communications  which  they  may  be  pleased  to 
make  on  this  subject  to  the  committee,  consisting  of 
the  Rev.  Dr.  White,  president,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Smith, 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Provoost,  the  honorable  James  Duane, 
esq.  and  Samuel  Powell  and  Richard  Peters,  esquires. 

Fourthly,  That  it  be  further  recommended  to  the 
different  conventions,  that  they  pay  especial  attention 
to  the  making  it  appear  to  their  lordships,  that  the 
persons  who  shall  be  sent  to  them  for  consecration 
are  desired  in  the  character  of  bishops,  as  well  by 
the  laity  as  by  the  clergy  of  this  church,  in  the  said 
states  respectively;  and  that  they  will  be  received  by 
them  in  that  character  on  their  return. 

Yy 


354 

Fifthly,  And  in  order  to  assure  their  lordships 
of  the  legaHty  of  the  present  proposed  appHcation, 
that  the  deputies  now  assembled  be  desired  to  make 
a  respectful  address  to  the  civil  rulers  of  the  states 
in  which  they  respectively  reside,  to  certify  that  the 
said  application  is  not  contrary  to  the  constitutions 
and  laws  of  the  same. 

Sixthly,  And  whereas  the  bishops  of  this  church 
will  not  be  entitled  to  any  of  such  temporal  honors 
as  are  due  to  the  archbishops  and  bishops  of  the  pa- 
rent church,  in  quality  of  lords  of  parhament;  and 
whereas  the  reputation  and  usefulness  of  our  bishops 
will  considerably  depend  on  their  taking  no  higher 
titles  or  stile  than  will  be  due  to  their  spiritual  em- 
ployuients;  that  it  be  recommended  to  this  church  in 
the  states  here  represented,  to  provide,  that  their  re- 
spective bishops  may  be  called  "'The  Right  Rev. 
^.  B.  bishop  of  the  protestant  episcopal  church  in 
C.  D."  and  as  bishop  may  have  no  other  title;  and 
may  not  use  any  such  stile  as  is  usually  descriptive  of 
temporal  power  and  precedency. 

No.  6.  Page  116. 
Letter  of  the  English  prelates. 

London,  February  24-,  1786. 

To  the  clerical  and  lay  deputies  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  church  in  sundry  of  the  United  States  of 
America. 

The  archbishop  of  Canterbury  hath  received  an 
address,  dated  in  convention,  Christ  church,  Phila- 
delphia, October  5,  1785,  from  the  clerical  and  lay 
deputies  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church  in  sun- 


^55 

(Ivy  oftlie  United  States  of  America,  directed  to  the 
arclibisliops  and  bishops  of  England,  and  requesting 
them  to  confer  the  Episcopal  character  on  such  per- 
sons as  shall  be  recommended  by  the  Episcopal 
church  in  the  several  states  by  them  represented. 

This  brotherly  and  christian  address  was  com- 
municated to  the  archbishop  of  York,  and  to  t,lie 
bishops,  with  as  much  despatch  as  their  separate  and 
distant  situations  would  permit,  and  hath  been  re- 
ceived and  considered  by  them  with  that  true  and 
affectionate  regard  which  they  have  always  shown 
towards  their  episcopal  brethren  in  America. 

We  are  now  enabled  to  assure  you,  that  nothing 
is  nearer  to  our  hearts  than  the  wish  to  promote  your 
spiritual  welfare,  to  be  instrumental  in  procuring  for 
you  the  complete  exercise  of  our  holy  religion,  and 
the  enjoyment  of  that  ecclesiastical  constitution, 
which  we  believe  to  be  truly  apostolical,  and  for 
which  you  express  so  unreserved  a  veneration. 

We  are  therefore  happy  to  be  informed,  that  this 
pious  design  is  not  likely  to  receive  any  discounte- 
nance from  the  civil  powers  under  which  you  live; 
and  we  desire  you  to  be  persuaded,  that  we,  on  our 
parts,  will  use  our  best  endeavours,  which  we  have 
good  reason  to  hope  will  be  successful,  to  acquire  a 
legal  capacity  of  complying  with  the  prayer  of  your 
address. 

With  these  sentiments  we  are  disposed  to  vake 
every  allowance  which  candour  can  suggest  for  the 
difficulties  of  your  situation,  but  at  the  same  time  we 
cannot  help  being  afraid,  that,  in  the  proceedini!;s  of 
your  convention,  some  alterations  may  have  been 


356 

adopted  or  intended,  which  those  difficulties  do  not 
seem  to  justify. 

Those  alterations  are  not  mentioned  in  your  ad- 
dress, and,  as  our  knowledge  of  them  is  no  more 
than  what  has  reached  us  through  private  and  less 
certain  channels,  we  hope  you  will  think  it  just,  both 
to  you  and  to  ourselves,  if  we  wait  for  an  explana- 
tion. 

For  while  we  are  anxious  to  give  every  proof, 
not  only  of  our  brotherly  affection,  but  of  our  facili- 
ty in  forwarding  your  wishes,  we  cannot  but  be  ex- 
tremely cautious,  lest  we  should  be  the  instruments 
of  establishing  an  ecclesiastical  system  which  will  be 
called  a  branch  of  the  church  of  England,  but  after- 
wards may  possibly  appear  to  have  departed  from  it 
essentially,  either  in  doctrine  or  in  discipline. 

In  the  mean  time,  we  heartily  commend  you  to 
God's  holy  protection,  and  are,  your  affectionate 
brethren, 

J.  Rochester, '  T.  Cantuar, 

R.  Worcester,  W.  Ebor, 

I.  Oxford,  R.  London, 

I.  Exeter,  W.  Chichester, 

Tho.  Lincoln,  C.  Bath  &  Wells, 

John  Bangor,  S.  St.  Asaph, 

L  Lichfield  &  Coventry,         S.  Sarum, 
S.  Gloucester,  J.  Peterborough, 

E.  St.  David's,  James  Ely. 

Chr.  Bristol, 
To  the  reverend  and  honourable  the  cUncal  and 
lay  deputies  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church  in 
sundry  of  the  United  Staies  of  America,  Philadelphia. 


357 

No.  7.  131. 
A  memorial  from  the  convention  in  JSeiv- Jersey. 

To  the  general  convention  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal church  oftiie  United  States  of  America,  to  be 
held  in  the  City  of  Philadelphia  in  June  next. 

Tli€  memorial  of  the  convention  of  the  said  church 
in  jyeiv- Jersey,  now  lield  in  the  City  of  Perth  Amhoy, 
Respectfully  sheweth, 

That  your  memorialists  have  unanimously  ap- 
proved of  the  alterations  in  the  liturgy  as  they  appear 
in  the  new  Prayer  Book,  to  render  it  consistent  with 
the  American  revolution  and  the  constitutions  of  the 
respective  states,  as  made  and  concluded  on  by  the 
late  general  convention  of  said  church  held  at  Phi- 
ladelphia, in  September  and  October  last;  they  being 
satisfactory  and  agreeable  to  their  wish. 

They  have  also  approved  of  their  plan  for  ob- 
taining consecration  of  bishops;  and  pursuant  to  their 
recommendation  have  appointed  a  committee  to  cor- 
respond with  the  English  bishops  for  that  purpose. 

They  have  also  with  great  pleasure  considered 
their  address  to  the  archbishops  and  bishops  of  the 
church  of  England;  which  your  memorialists  are  of 
opinion  was  properly  calculated  to  obtain  the  end 
proposed. 

But  it  is  with  the  greatest  concern  they  are  con- 
strained to  remark,  that  the  other  proceedings  of  the 
said  convention,  in  their  opinion,  have  an  undoubted 
tendency  to  prolong,  if  not  entirely  prevent,  the  ob- 
taining the  prayer  thereof.    In  this  opinion  your  me- 


Q. 


58 


morialists  conceive  they  are  supported  by  the  answer 
of  the  said  venerable  bishops,  with  a  copy  of  which 
they  have  been  favoured  during  their  sitting  at  this 
place;  for  which  reason  among  others,  they  did  not 
ratify,  but  disapproved  of  the  other  parts  of  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  said  late  general  convention. 

Your  memorialists  do  not  question  the  right  of 
every  National  or  Independent  Church  to  make  such 
alterations  from  time  to  time,  in  the  mode  of  its  pub- 
lic worship,  as  upon  mature  consideration  may  be 
found  expedient;  but  they  doubt  the  right  of  any  or- 
der or  orders  of  men  in  an  episcopal  church,  with- 
out a  bishop,  to  make  any  alterations  not  warranted 
by  immediate  necessity;  especially  such,  as  not  only 
go  to  the  mode  of  its  worship,  but  also  to  its  doc- 
trines. Wherefore  your  memorialists  cannot  for- 
bear remarking,  that  in  their  opinion,  all  unnecessa- 
ry alterations  must  be  unseasonable  and  impolitic, 
and  will  prove  highly  detrimental  to  the  church  in 
general. 

Your  memorialists  cannot  approve  of  the  said 
late  general  convention  having  published  in  the  man- 
ner they  have,  the  new  book  of  Common  Prayer  as 
altered,  with  the  psalms  and  calendar  transposed  and 
changed  by  their  committee,  without  their  revision 
and  express  approbation;  but  since  they  have  done 
so,  and  if  it  was  proper  to  have  been  considered, 
your  memorialists  have  to  regret,  that  the  same  was 
not  sooner  published,  that  they  might  have  been  en- 
abled to  have  declared  the  sentiments  of  their  con- 
stituents as  well  as  their  own.     The  prejudices  anil 


359 

prepossessions  of  mankind  in  favour  of  old  customs, 
especially  in  religious  matters,  are  generally  so 
strong  as  to  require  great  delicacy  and  caution  in  the 
introduction  of  any  alterations  or  innovations,  al- 
though manifestly  for  the  better;  which  was  also  one 
reason  why  they  could  not  at  this  time  ratify  the  al- 
terations so  unnecessarily  made;  and  they  are  veiy 
apprehensive,  that  until  alterations  can  be  made  con- 
sistent with  the  customs  of  the  primitive  church,  and 
with  the  rules  of  the  church  ot  England  from  which 
it  is  our  boast  to  have  descended,  a  ratification  of  them 
would  create  great  uneasiness  in  the  minds  of  many 
members  of  the  church,  and  in  great  probabihty 
cause  dissentions  and  schisms.  Although  they  may 
not  disapprove  of  all  the  alterations  made  in  the  said 
new  book,  yet  they  have  to  regret  the  unseasonable- 
ness  and  irregularity  of  them. 

Your  memorialists  having  an  anxious  desire  of 
cementing,  perpetuating,  and  extending  the  Union  so 
happily  begun  in  the  church;  with  all  deference  and 
submission,  humbly  request  and  intreat  the  said  ge- 
neral convention,  now  soon  to  meet,  that  they  will 
revise  the  proceedings  of  the  said  late  convention  and 
their  aforesaid  conmiittee,  and  remove  every  cause 
that  may  have  excited  any  jealously  or  fear,  that  the 
episcopal  church  in  the  United  States  of  America  have 
any  intention  or  desire  essentially  to  depart,  either  in 
doctrine  or  disciphne,  from  the  church  of  England; 
but  on  the  contrary,  to  convince  the  world  that  it  is 
their  wish  and  intention,  to  maintain  the  doctrines 
of  the  gospel  as  now  held  by  the  church  of  England, 


360 

and  to  adhere  to  the  liturgy  of  the  said  church  as  tar 
as  shall  be  consistent  with  the  American  devolution, 
and  the  constitution  of  the  respective  states:  thereby 
removing  every  obstacle  in  the  way  of  obtaining  the 
consecration  of  such  and  so  many  persons  to  the  epis- 
copal character  as  shall  render  our  Ecclesiastical 
government  complete,  and  secure  to  the  episcopa- 
lians in  America,  and  to  their  descendants,  a  succes- 
sion of  that  necessary  order:  And  that  they  will  use 
all  means  in  their  power  to  promote  and  perpetuate 
harmony  and  unanimity  among  ourselves,  and  with 
the  said  church  of  England  as  a  Mother  or  Sister 
church,  and  with  every  protestant  church  in  the  uni- 
verse. 

By  order  of  the  convention, 

Abrm.  Beach,  President. 
PeHh  Amboy,  May  19,  1786. 

No.  a  Page  131. 
Second  address  to  the  English  prelates. 

To  the  most  reverend  and  right  reverend  fathers 
in  God,  the  archbishops  and  bishops  of  tJie  church  of 
England. 
Most  worthy  and  venerable  prelates. 

We,  the  clerical  and  lay  deputies  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  church  in  the  states  of  New  York,  New 
Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia 
and  South  Carolina,  have  received  the  friendly  and  af- 
fectionate letter  which  your  lordships  did  us  the  ho- 
nour to  write  on  the  24th  day  of  February,  and  for 


361 

which  we  request  you  to  accept  our  sincere  and 
grateful  acknowledgments. 

It  gives  us  pleasure  to  be  assure'!,  that  the  suc- 
cess of  our  application  will  probably  meet  with  no 
greater  obstacles  than  what  have  arisen  from  doubts 
respecting  the  extent  of  the  alterations  we  have  made 
and  proposed;  and  we  are  happy  to  learn,  that  as  no 
political  impediments  oppose  us  here,  those  which  at 
present  exist  in  England  may  be  removed. 

While  doubts  remain  of  our  continuing  to  hold 
the  same  essential  articles  of  faith  and  disciphne 
with  the  church  of  England,  we  acknowledge  the 
propriety  of  suspending  a  compliance  with  our  re- 
quest. 

We  are  unanimous  and  explicit  in  assuring  your 
lordships,  that  we  neither  have  departed  nor  propose 
to  depart  from  the  doctrines  of  your  church.  We 
have  retained  the  same  discipline  and  forms  of  wor- 
ship, as  far  as  was  consistent  with  our  civil  constitu- 
tions; and  we  have  made  no  alterations  or  omissions 
in  the  book  of  Common  Prayer,  but  such  as  that 
consideration  prescribed,  and  such  as  were  calcula- 
ted to  remove  objections,  which  it  appeared  to  us 
more  conducive  to  union  and  general  content  to  ob- 
viate, than  to  dispute.  It  is  well  known,  that  many 
great  and  pious  men  of  the  church  of  England  have 
long  wished  for  a  revision  of  the  liturgy,  which  it 
was  deemed  imprudent  to  hazard,  lest  it  might  be- 
come a  precedent  for  repeated  and  improper  altera,- 
tions.     This  is  with  us  the  proper  season  for  such  a 

z  z 


362 

revision.  We  are  now  settling  and  ordering  the  af- 
fairs of  our  church,  and  if  wisely  done,  we  shall  have 
reason  to  promise  ourselves  all  the  advantages  that 
can  result  from  stability  and  union. 

We  are  anxious  to  complete  our  Episcopal  sys- 
tem, by  means  of  the  church  of  England.  We  esteem 
and  prefer  it,  and  with  gratitude  acknowledge  the 
patronage  and  favours  for  which,  while  connected, 
we  have  constantly  been  indebted  to  that  church. 
These  considerations,  added  to  that  of  agreement  in 
faith  and  worship,  press  us  to  repeat  our  former  re- 
quest, and  to  endeavour  to  remove  your  present  he- 
sitation, by  sending  you  our  proposed  Ecclesiastical 
constitution  and  Book  of  Common  Prayer. 

These  documents,  we  trust,  will  afford  a  full  an- 
swer to  every  question  that  can  arise  on  the  subject. 
We  consider  your  lordships'  letter  as  very  candid  and 
kind;  we  repose  full  confidence  in  the  assurances  it 
gives;  and  that  confidence,  together  with  the  liberali- 
ty and  Catholicism  of  your  venerable  body,  leads  us 
to  flatter  ourselves,  that  you  will  not  disclaim  a 
branch  of  your  church  merely  for  having  been  in 
your  lordships'  opinion,  if  that  should  be  the  case, 
pruned  rather  more  closely  than  its  separation  made 
absolutely  necessary. 

We  have  only  to  add,  that  as  our  church  in  sun- 
dry of  these  states  have  already  proceeded  to  the 
election  of  persons  to  be  sent  for  consecration,  and 
others  may  soon  proceed  to  the  same,  we  pray  to 
be  favoured  with  as  speedy  an  answer  to  this  ourse- 


363 

cond  address,  as  in  your  great  goodness  you  were 
pleased  to  give  to  our  former  one. 
We  are, 

With  great  and  sincere  respect, 

Most  worthy  and  venerable  Prelates, 
Your  obedient  and 
In  Convention,  Very  humble  servants, 

Christ  church,  Philadelphia,  June  26,  1786. 
Signed  by  all  the  members. 

No.  9.  p.  131. 

Communications  from  the  archbishops  of  Canterbury 

and  York. 

To  tJie  committee  of  the  general  convention  at 
Philadelphia,  the  Rev.  Dr.  White,  jyresident,  tJie  Rev. 
Di\  Smith,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Provoost,  the  honorable  James 
Duane,  Samuel  Powell,  and  Richard  Peters,  Esqrs. 
Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen, 

Influenced  by  the  same  sentiments  of  fraternal 
regard,  expressed  by  the  archbishops  and  bishops  in 
their  answer  to  your  address,  we  desire  you  to  be 
persuaded,  that  if  we  have  not  yet  been  able  to  com- 
ply with  your  request,  the  delay  has  proceeded  from 
no  tai'diness  on  our  part.  The  only  cause  of  it,  has 
been  the  uncertainty  in  which  we  were  left  by  re- 
ceiving your  address  unaccompanied  by  those  com- 
munications with  regard  to  your  liturgy,  articles  and 
ecclesiastical  constitution,  without  the  knowledge  of 
which  we  could  not  presume  to  apply  to  the  legisla- 
ture, for  such  pow  ers  as  were  necessary  to  the  com- 
pletion of  your  wishes.     The  journal  of  the  conven- 


364 

tion,  and  the  first  part  of  your  liturgy,  did  not  reacU 
us  till  more  than  two  months  after  our  receipt  of  your 
address;  and  we  were  not  in  possession  of  the  re- 
maining part  of  it  and  of  your  articles,  till  the  last 
day  of  April.  The  whole  of  your  communications 
was  then,  with  as  little  delay  as  possible,  taken  into 
consideration  at  a  meeting  of  the  archbishops  and 
fifteen  of  the  bishops,  being  all  who  were  then  in 
London  and  able  to  attend;  and  it  was  impossible  not 
to  observe  with  concern,  that  if  the  essential  doctrines 
of  our  common  faith  were  retained,  less  respect  how- 
ever was  paid  to  our  liturgy  than  its  own  excellence, 
and  your  declared  attachment  to  it,  had  led  us  to  ex- 
pect. Not  to  mention  a  variety  of  verbal  alterations, 
of  the  necessity  or  propriety  of  which  we  are  by  no 
means  satisfied,  we  saw  with  grief,  that  two  of  the 
confessions  of  our  christian  faith,  respectable  for  their 
antiquity,  have  been  entirely  laid  aside;  and  that  even 
in  that  which  is  called  the  apostle's  creed,  an  article 
is  omitted,  which  was  thought  necessary  to  be  insert- 
ed, with  a  view  to  a  particular  heresy,  in  a  very  early 
age  of  the  church,  and  has  ever  since  had  the  vene- 
rable sanction  of  universal  reception.  Nevertheless, 
as  a  proof  of  the  sincere  desire  which  we  feel  to  con- 
tinue in  spiritual  comaiunion  with  the  members  of 
your  church  in  America,  and  to  complete  the  orders 
of  your  ministry,  and  trusting  that  the  communica- 
tions which  we  shall  make  to  you,  on  the  subject  of 
these  and  some  other  alterations,  will  have  their  de- 
sired effect,  we  have,  even  under  these  circumstances, 
prepared  a  bill  for  conveying  to  us  the  powers  neces- 


1 


365 

sary  for  this  purpose.  It  will  in  a  few  days  be  pre- 
sented to  parliament,  and  we  have  the  best  reasons 
to  hope  that  it  will  receive  the  assent  of  the  legisla- 
ture. This  bill  will  enable  the  archbishops  and  bish- 
ops to  give  episcopal  consecration  to  the  persons  who 
shall  be  recommended,  without  requiring  from  them 
any  oaths  or  subscriptions  inconsistent  with  the  situa- 
tion in  which  the  late  revolution  has  placed  them;  upon 
condition  that  the  full  satisfaction  of  the  sufficiency 
of  the  persons  recommended,  which  you  offer  to  us 
in  your  address,  be  given  to  the  archbishops  and  bish- 
ops. You  will  doubtless  receive  it  as  a  mark  both  of 
our  friendly  disposition  toward  you,  and  of  our  de- 
sire to  avoid  all  delay  on  this  occasion,  that  we  have 
taken  this  earliest  opportunity  of  conveying  to  you 
this  intelligence,  and  that  we  proceed  (as  supposing 
ourselves  invested  with  that  power  which  for  your 
sakes  we  have  requested)  to  state  to  you  particularly 
the  several  heads,  upon  which  that  satisfaction  which 
you  offer,  will  be  accepted,  and  the  mode  in  which  it 
may  be  given.  The  anxiety  which  is  shown  by  the 
church  of  England  to  prevent  the  intrusion  of  un- 
qualified persons  into  even  the  inferior  offices  of  our 
ministry,  confirms  our  own  sentiments,  and  points  it 
out  to  be  our  duty,  very  earnestly  to  require  the  most 
decisive  proofs  of  the  qualifications  of  those  who  may 
be  offered  for  admission  to  that  order,  to  which  the 
superintendence  of  those  offices  is  committed.  At 
our  several  ordinations  of  a  deacon  and  a  priest,  the 
candidate  submits  himself  to  the  examination  of  the 
bishop  as  to  his  proficiency  in  learning^  he  gives  the 


366 

proper  security  of  his  soundness  in  the  faith  by  the 
subscriptions  which  are  made  previously  necessary; 
he  is  required  to  bring  testimonials  of  his  virtuous 
conversation  during  the  three  preceding  years;  and 
that  no  mode  of  inquiry  may  be  omitted,  public  no- 
tice of  his  offering  himself  to  be  ordained  is  given 
in  the  parish  church  where  he  resides  or  ministers, 
and  the  people  are  solemnly  called  upon  to  declare, 
if  they  know  any  impediment  for  the  which  he  ought 
not  to  be  admitted.  At  the  time  of  ordination  too,  the 
same  solemn  call  is  made  on  the  congregation  then 
present. 

Examination,  subscription  and  testimonials  are 
not  indeed  repeated  at  the  consecration  of  an  Eng- 
lish bishop,  because  the  person  to  be  consecrated 
has  added  to  the  securities  given  at  his  former  ordi- 
nations, that  sanction  which  arises  from  his  having 
constantly  lived  and  exercised  his  ministry  under 
the  eyes  and  observation  of  his  country.  But  the  ob- 
jects of  our  present  consideration  are  very  different- 
ly circumstanced;  their  sufficiency  in  learning,  the 
soundness  of  their  faith,  and  the  purity  of  their  man- 
ners, are  not  matters  of  notoriety  here;  means  there- 
fore must  be  found  to  satisfy  the  archbishop  who 
consecrates,  and  the  bishops  w^ho  present  them,  that, 
in  the  words  of  our  church,  "  They  be  apt  and  meet 
for  their  learning  and  godly  conversation,  to  exercise 
their  ministry  duly  to  the  honour  of  God,  and  the 
edifying  of  his  church,  and  to  be  wholesome  exam- 
ples and  patterns  to  the  flock  of  Christ. 


367 

With  regard  to  the  first  qualification,  sufficiency 
in  good  learning,  we  apprehend  that  the  subjecting 
a  person,  who  is  to  be  admitted  to  the  office  of  a 
bishop  in  the  church,  to  that  examination  which  is 
required  previous  to  the  ordination  of  priests  and 
deacons,  might  lessen  that  reverend  estimation  which 
ought  never  to  be  separated  from  the  Episcopal  cha- 
racter: we  therefore  do  not  require  any  farther  sa- 
tisfaction on  this  point,  than  will  be  given  to  us  by 
the  forms  of  testimonials  in  the  annexed  paper;  ful-  , 
\y  trusting  that  those  who  sign  them  will  be  well 
aware,  how  greatly  incompetence  in  this  respect  must 
lessen  the  weight  and  authority  of  the  bishop  and 
aflfect  the  credit  of  the  Episcopal  church. 

Under  the  second  head,  that  of  subscription,  our 
desire  is  to  require  that  subscription  only  to  be  re- 
peated, which  you  have  already  been  called  upon  to 
make  by  the  tenth  article  of  your  ecclesiastical  con- 
stitution. But  we  should  forget  the  duty  which  we 
owe  to  our  own  church,  and  act  inconsistently  with 
that  sincere  regard  which  we  bear  to  yours,  if  we 
were  not  explicit  in  declaring,  that,  after  the  disposi- 
tion we  have  shewn  to  comply  w  ith  the  prayer  of 
your  address,  we  think  it  now  incumbent  upon  you 
to  use  your  utmost  exertions  also  for  the  removal  of 
any  stumbling  block  of  offence,  which  may  possibly 
prove  an  obstacle  to  the  success  of  it.  We  therefore 
most  earnestly  exhort  you,  that  previously  to  the 
time  of  your  making  such  subscription,  you  restore 
to  its  integrity  the  apostle's  creed,  in  which  you 
have  omitted  an  article  merely,  as  it  seems,  from 


368 

misapprehension  of  the  sense  in  which  it  is  under- 
stood by  our  church;  nor  can  we  help  adding,  that 
we  hope  you  will  think  it  but  a  decent  proof  of  the 
attachment  which  you  profess  to  the  services  of  your 
liturgy,  to  give  to  the  other  two  creeds  a  place  in 
your  book  of  Common  Prayer,  even  though  the  use 
of  them  should  be  left  discretional.  We  should  be 
inexcusable  too,  if  at  the  time  when  you  are  request- 
ing the  establishment  of  bishops  in  your  church,  we 
did  not  strongly  represent  to  you  that  the  eighth  ar- 
ticle of  your  ecclesiastical  constitution  appears  to  us 
to  be  a  degradation  of  the  clerical,  and  still  more  of 
the  episcopal  character.  We  persuade  ourselves,  that 
in  your  ensuing  convention  some  alteration  will  be 
thought  necessary  in  this  article,  before  this  reaches 
you;  or,  if  not,  that  due  attention  will  be  given  to  it 
in  consequence  of  our  representation. 

On  the  third  and  last  head,  which  respects  purity 
of  manners,  the  reputation  of  the  church,  both  in 
England  and  America,  and  the  interest  of  our  com- 
mon Christianity  is  so  deeply  concerned  in  it,  that  we 
feel  it  our  indispensible  duty  to  provide,  on  this  sub- 
ject, the  most  effectual  securities.  It  is  presumed, 
that  the  same  previous  public  notice  of  the  intention 
of  the  person  to  be  consecrated  will  be  given  in  the 
church  where  he  resides  in  America,  for  the  same 
reasons,  and  therefore  nearly  in  the  same  form,  with 
that  used  in  England  before  our  ordinations.  The 
call  upon  the  persons  present  at  the  time  of  conse- 
cration, must  be  deemed  of  little  use  before  a  con- 
gregation composed  of  those  to  whom  the  person  to 


369 

be  consecrated  is  unknown.  The  testimonials,  signed 
by  persons  living  in  England,  admit  of  reference  and 
examination,  and  the  characters  of  those  who  give 
them  are  subject  to  scrutiny,  and,  in  cases  of  criminal 
deceit,  to  punishment.  In  proportion  as  these  cir- 
cumstances arc  less  applicable  to  testimonials  from 
America,  those  testimonials  must  be  more  explicit, 
and  supported  by  a  greater  number  of  signatures. 
We  therefore  think  it  necessary  that  the  several  per- 
sons, candidates  for  episcopal  consecration,  should 
bring  to  us  both  a  testimonial  from  the  general  con- 
vention of  the  episcopal  church,  with  as  many  sig- 
natures as  can  be  obtained,  and  a  more  particular 
one,  from  the  respective  conventions  in  those  states 
which  recommend  them.  It  will  appear  from  the 
tenor  of  the  letters  testimonial  used  in  England,  a 
form  of  which  is  annexed,  that  the  ministers  who 
sign  them  bear  testimony  to  the  qualifications  of  the 
candidates  on  their  own  personal  knowledge.  Such 
a  testimony  is  not  to  be  expected  from  the  members 
of  the  general  convention  of  the  episcopal  church  in 
America,  on  this  occasion.  We  think  it  sufficient, 
therefore,  that  they  declare  they  know  no  impedi- 
ment, but  believe  the  person  to  be  consecrated,  is  of 
a  virtuous  life  and  sound  faith.  We  have  sent  you 
such  a  form  as  appears  to  us  proper  to  be  used  for 
that  purpose.  More  specific  declarations  must  be 
made,  by  the  members  of  the  convention  in  each 
state  from  which  the  persons  offered  for  consecration 
are  respectively  recommended.  Their  personal  know- 
ledge of  them  there  can  be  no  doubt  of     We  trust. 

3  a 


370 

therefore,  they  will  have  no  objection  to  the  adoption 
of  the  form  of  a  testimonial  which  is  annexed  and 
drawn  up  on  the  same  principles,  and  containing  the 
same  attestations  of  personal  knowledge  with  that 
above  mentioned,  as  required  previously  to  our  ordi-< 
nations.  We  trust  we  shall  receive  these  testimonials 
signed  by  such  a  majority  in  each  convention  that 
recommend,  as  to  leave  no  doubt  of  the  fitness  of  the 
candidates  upon  the  minds  of  those  whose  con- 
sciences are  concerned  in  the  consecration  of  them. 
Thus  much  we  have  thought  it  right  to  commu- 
nicate to  you  without  reserve  at  present,  intending  to 
give  you  farther  information  as  soon  as  we  are  able. 
In  the  mean  time,  we  pray  God  to  direct  your  coun- 
sels  in  this  very  weighty  matter,  and  are,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent and  Gentlemen,  your  affectionate  Brethren, 

J.  Cantuar. 
W.  Ebor. 

Form  of  a  Testimonial  for  Priest's  Orders  in  En- 
gland. 

To  the  Right  Rev.  Father  in  God by  Divine 

permission  Lord  Bishop  of . 

We,  whose  names  are  here  underwritten,  testify 
from  our  personal  knowledge  of  the  life  and  beha- 
viour of  A.  B.  for  the  space  of  three  years  last  past, 
that  he  hath  during  that  time,  lived  piously,  soberly, 
and  honestly:  T\'or  hath  he  at  any  time,  as  far  as  we 
know  or  believe,  written,  taught  or  held,  any  thing 
contrary  to  the  doctrine  or  discipline  of  the  church 
of  England.  And,  moreover,  we  think  him  a  person 


371 

worthy  to  be  admitted  to  the  sacred  order  ot^  priest. 
In  witness  whereof  we  have  liereunto  set  our  hands. 

Dated  the day  of in  the  year  of  our 

Lord . 

Testimony  from  the  General  Convention. 

We,  whose  names  are  underwritten,  fully  sensi- 
ble how  important  it  is  that  the  sacred  office  of  a 
bishop  should  not  be  unworthily  conferred,  and  firm- 
ly persuaded  that  it  is  our  duty  to  bear  our  testimo- 
ny on  this  solemn  occasion  without  partiality  or  affec- 
tion, do,  in  the  presence  of  Almight}'  God,  testify,  that 
A.  B.  is  not,  so  far  as  we  are  informed,  justly  liable 
to  evil  report,  either  for  error  in  religion  or  for  vi- 
ciousness  of  life;  and  that  we  do  not  know  or  beheve 
there  is  any  impediment  or  notable  crime,  on  ac- 
count of  which  he  ought  not  to  be  consecrated  to 
that  holy  office,  but  that  he  hath  led  his  life,  for  the 
three  years  last  past,  piously,  soberly  and  honestly. 

Testimony  from  the  members  of  the  Convention  in 
the  state  from  whence  the  person  is  recommended  for 
consecratimi. 

We,  whose  names  are  underwritten,  fully  sensi- 
ble how  important  it  is  that  the  sacred  office  of  a 
bishop  should  not  be  unworthily  conferred,  and  firm- 
ly persuaded  that  it  is  our  duty  to  bear  testimony  on 
this  solemn  occasion  without  partiality  or  affection, 
do,  in  the  presence  of  Almighty  God,  testify,  that 
A.  B.  is  not,  so  far  as  we  are  informed,  justly  liable 
to  evil  report  either  for  error  in  religion,  or  for  vi- 
ciousness  of  life-,  and  that  we  do  not  know  or  believe 


372 

there  is  any  impediment  or  notable  crime  for  which 
he  ought  not  to  be  consecrated  to  that  holy  office. 
We  do,  moreover,  jointly  and  severally  declare,  that 
having  personally  known  him  for  three  years  last 
past,  we  do  in  our  consciences  believe  him  to  be  of 
such  sufficiency  in  good  learning,  such  soundness  in 
the  faith,  and  of  such  virtuous  and  pure  manners 
and  godly  conversation,  that  he  is  apt  and  meet  to 
e^xercise  the  office  of  a  bishop,  to  the  honour  of  God 
and  the  edifying  of  his  church,  and  to  be  an  whole- 
some example  to  the  flock  of  Christ. 

No.  10.  Page  131. 
Communication  from  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury. 

Canterbury,  July  4,  1786. 
To  the  committee  of  the  general  convention,  &c.  &c. 
Gentlemen, 

The  enclosed  act  being  now  passed,  I  have  the 
satisfaction  of  communicating  it  to  you.  It  is  ac- 
companied by  a  copy  of  a  letter,  and  some  forms  of 
testimonials,  which  I  sent  you  by  the  packet  of  last 
month.  It  is  the  opinion  here,  that  no  more  than 
three  bishops  should  be  consecrated  for  the  United 
States  of  America;  who  may  consecrate  others  at 
their  return,  if  more  be  found  necessary.  But 
whether  we  can  consecrate  any,  or  not,  must  yet  de- 
pend on  the  answers  we  may  receive,  to  what  we 
have  written. 

I  am  your  humble  servant, 

J.  Cantuar. 


373 

An  act  to  empower  the  archbishop  of  Canterbu- 
nj,  or  the  archbishop  of  York,  for  the  time  being,  to 
consecrate  to  the  office  of  a  bishoji,  peisons  being  sub- 
jects or  citizens  ofcountnes  out  of  his  majesty's  do- 
minions. 

Whereas  by  the  laws  of  this  realm  no  person 
can  be  consecrated  to  the  office  of  a  bishop,  without 
the  king's  license  for  his  election  to  that  office,  and 
the  royal  mandate  under  the  great  seal  for  his  con- 
firmation and  consecration:  And  whereas  every  per- 
son who  shall  be  consecrated  to  the  said  office  is  re- 
quired to  take  the  oaths  of  allegiance  and  suprema- 
cy, and  also  the  oath  of  due  obedience  to  the  arch- 
bishop: And  whereas  there  are  divers  persons  sub- 
jects or  citizens  of  counti'ies  out  of  his  majesty's  do- 
minions, inhabiting  and  residing  within  the  said  coun- 
tries, who  profess  the  public  worship  of  Almighty 
God  according  to  the  principles  of  the  church  of 
England,  and  who,  in  order  to  provide  a  regular  suc- 
cession of  ministers  for  the  service  of  their  church, 
are  desirous  of  having  certain  of  the  subjects  or  ci- 
tizens of  tliose  countries  consecrated  bishops,  ac- 
cording to  the  form  of  consecration  in  the  church  of 
England:  Be  it  enacted  by  the  king's  most  excellent 
majesty,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 
Lords  spiritual  and  temporal  and  commons  in  this 
present  pai'liament  assembled,  and  by  the  authority 
of  the  same,  that  from  and  after  the  passing  of  this 
act,  it  shall  and  may  be  lawful  to  and  for  the  arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury,  or  the   archbishop  of  York, 
for  the  time  being,  together  with  such  other  bishops 


374 

as  they  shall  call  to  their  assistance,  to  consecrate 
persons  being  subjects  or  citizens  of  countries  out  of 
his  majesty's  dominions,  bishops  for  the  purposes, 
aforesaid,  without  the  king's  license  for  their  elec- 
tion, or  the  royal  mandate  under  the  great  seal  for 
their  confirmation  and  consecration,  and  without  re- 
quiring them  to  take  the  oaths  of  allegiance  and  su- 
premacy, and  the  oath  of  due  obedience  to  the  arch- 
bishop for  the  time  being.  Provided  always,  that  no 
persons  shall  be  consecrated  bishops  in  the  manner 
herein  provided,  until  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
or  the  archbishop  of  York,  for  the  time  being,  shall 
have  first  applied  for,  and  obtained  his  majesty's  li- 
cence, by  warrant  under  his  royal  signet  and  sign 
manual,  authorizing  and  empowering  him  to  perform 
such  consecration,  and  expressing  the  name  or 
names  of  the  persons  so  to  be  consecrated;  nor  until 
the  said  archbishop  has  been  fully  ascertained  of 
their  sufficiency  in  good  learning,  of  the  soundne&s 
of  their  faith,  and  of  the  purity  of  their  manners. 
Provided  also,  and  be  it  hereby  declared,  that  no 
person  or  persons  consecrated  to  the  office  of  a  bish- 
op in  the  manner  aforesaid,  nor  any  person  or  per- 
sons deriving  their  consecration  from  or  under  any 
bishops  so  consecrated,  nor  any  person  or  persons 
admitted  to  the  order  of  deacon  or  priest  by  any 
bishop  or  bishops  so  consecrated,  or  by  the  succes- 
sor or  successors  of  any  bishop  or  bishops  so  conse- 
crated, shall  be  thereby  enabled  to  exercise  his  or 
their  respective  office  or  offices  within  his  majesty's 
dominions.     Provided  always,  and  be  it  furtiier  en- 


375 

acted,  that  a  certificate  of  such  consecration  shall 
be  given  under  the  hand  and  seal  of  the  archbishop 
who  consecrates,  containing  the  name  of  the  person 
so  consecrated,  with  the  addition  as  well  of  the  coun- 
try  whereof  he  is  a  subject  or  citizen,  as  of  the  church 
in  which  he  is  appointed  bishop,  and  the  further 
description  of  his  not  having  taken  the  said  oaths, 
being  exempted  from  the  obligation  of  so  doing  by 
virtue  of  this  act. 

No.  11.  p.  134. 
Address  to  the  Archbishops  of  Canterbury  and  York. 

Most  w^orthy  and  venerable  Prelates, 

In  pursuance  of  your  graces'  communications  to 
the  standing  committee  of  our  church,  received  by 
the  June  packet,  and  the  letter  of  his  grace  the  arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury,  of  July  the  fourth,  enclosing 
the  act  of /parliament  "  to  empower  the  archbishop 
of  Canterbury,  or  the  archbishop  of  York,  for  the 
time  being,  to  consecrate  to  the  office  of  a  bishop, 
persons  being  subjects  or  citizens,  of  countries  out 
of  his  majesty's  dominions,"  a  general  convention, 
now  sitting,  have  the  honour  of  offering  their  unani- 
mous and  hearty  thanks,  for  the  continuance  of  your 
christian  attention  to  this  church;  and  particularly 
for  your  having  so  speedily  acquired  a  legal  capacity, 
of  complying  with  the  prayer  of  our  former  addresses. 
He  have  taken  into  our  most  serious  and  de- 
liberate consideration,  the  several  matters  so  affec- 
tionately recommended  to  us  in  those  communica- 
tions, and  whatever  could  be  done  towards  a  com- 


376 

pliance  with  your  fatherly  wishes  and  advice,  con- 
sistently with  our  local  circumstances,  and  the  peace 
and  unity  of  our  church,  hath  been  agreed  to;  as,  we 
trust,  will  appear  from  the  enclosed  act  of  our  con- 
vention, which  we  have  the  honour  to  transmit  to  you, 
together  with  the  journal  of  our  proceedings. 
We  are,  with  great  and  sincere  respect, 
Most  worthy  and  venerable  Prelates, 
Your  obedient  and  very  humble  servants, 
(By  Order) 
In  general  Convention,   Samuel  Provoost,  Prest. 
At  Wilmington,  in  the  State  of  Delaware,  October 
nth,  1786. 

No  12.  Page,  136. 

A  letter  from  Granville  Sharp,  esq.  to  Dr.  Benja- 
min Franklin,  with  extracts  of  letters. 

Extract  of  a  letter  from  Granville  Sha)^  to  tlie 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  dated  ISth.  September, 
1785. 

"  All  these  circumstances  prove  that  the  present 
time  is  very  important  and  critical  for  the  promotion 
of  the  interests  and  future  extension  of  the  Episco- 
pal church  in  America,  and  that  no  time  should  be 
lost  in  obtaining  authority  for  the  archbishops  and 
bishops  of  England  to  dispense  with  the  oaths  of 
allegiance  in  tiie  consecration  of  bishops  for  foreign 
churches,  that  they  may  be  restored  to  their  unques- 
tionable right  as  christian  bishops  to  extend  the  Epis- 
eopal  church  of  Christ  all  over  the  world.'^ 


377 

'•  An  immediate  interference  is  become  the  more 
necessary,  not  only  on  account  of  the  pretensions  of 
Dr.  Seabury  and  the  noajnr'uig  bisliops  of  Scotland 
(to  which,  however,  I  hoi)e  my  letters  will  have  given 
a  timely  check)  but  also  to  guard  against  the  pre- 
sumption of  Mr.  Wesley  and  other  JMetlwdists;  who, 
it  seems,  have  sent  over  some  persons  under  the 
name  of  Supcnntendcmts,  with  an  assumed  authority 
to  ordain  Priests,  as  if  they  were  really  invested 
with  Episcopal  authority." 

"  Some  accounts  of  this  were  read  to  the  society 
for  propagating  the  gospel  in  May  last,  from  the  let- 
ters oi'  their  missionaries;  and  I  have  since  heard  that 
some  methodistical  clergymen  have  procured  con- 
secration from  the  Mm^avian  churches,  which  the 
latter  had  received  from  the  bishops  of  Poland. 
These  attempts  of  the  sectaries  prove,  however,  that 
they  perceive  among  the  Americans  an  increasing 
inclination  towards  Episcopal  government,  of  which 
they  want  to  take  an  undue  advantage;  and  conse- 
quently they  prove,  also,  that  the  exertions  of  every 
sincere  fiiend  to  the  church  of  England  are  pecu- 
liarly necessary  at  this  time  to  counteract  them,  and 
to  facilitate  the  communication  of  a  pure  and  irre- 
prehensible  Episcopacy  to  America,  by  removing  the 
obstacles  which  at  present  restrain  the  archbishops 
and  bishops  of  England,  from  extending  the  church 
of  England  beyond  the  bounds  of  English  govern- 
merU" 

"I  should  also  inform  your  grace,  that  America 
is  not  the  only  part  wherein  protestant  Episcopacy  is 


378 

likely  to  be  extended,  when  the  rights  of  election 
are  better  understood:  for  had  I  been  prepared  in  the 
year  1767,  on  this  point,  as  I  am  at  present,  I  have 
reason  to  believe  that  a  protestant  Episcopal  church 
would  have  been  promoted  in  Holland,  and  in  seve- 
ral parts  of  Germany  and  Switzerland,  long  before 
this  time." 

"  How  I  happened  to  be  concerned  in  so  import- 
ant an  affair,  (if  your  grace  should  have  leisure  and 
curiosity  to  be  informed)  I  am  ready  to  communi- 
cate on  receiving  your  commands,  &c. 

Extract  of  a  letter  from  Otanville  Sharp  to  the 
Archbishop   of  Canterbury,  dated  llth.  February, 

1786. 

"  Since  I  had  the  honor  of  speaking  to  your  grace 
on  this  subject,  I  have  perused  Dr.  Smith's  sermon, 
which  was  preached  before  the  convention  at  Phila- 
delphia; and  though  I  have  still  great  fears  about  the 
propriety  of  the  alterations  they  have  made  in  the 
liturgy,  yet  there  seems  to  be  some  ground  to  hope 
that  they  will  be  able  to  assign  a  reasonable  excuse 
for  the  changes,  without  giving  occasion  to  suspect 
any  want  of  belief  in  the  several  articles  which  they 
have  omitted:  for  Dr.  Smith  plainly  insinuates  that 
they  proceeded  on  the  model  of  the  alterations  that 
were  proposed  to  the  English  convocation  in  1689: 
for  which,  several  circumstances  have  induced  me 
to  entertain  a  favourable  opinion.  In  looking  over 
the  MS.  account  of  archbishop  Sharp's  life,  1  find 
that  he  was  one  of  the  King's  commissioners  for 


379 

that  business,  and  took  infinite  pains  therein,  being 
sensible  that  some  alterations  might  be  made  with 
advantage.  He  was  also  the  person,  who  first  pro- 
posed in  convocation  that  Dr.  Tillotson  should  be 
appointed  prolocutor,  in  order  to  favour  the  intended 
alterations.  Dr.  Nichols  has  given  a  short  general 
account  of  that  business  in  his  '  Apparatus  ad  de- 
fen^iomm  ccdcsice  anglicance;"  but  I  never  heard 
that  the  transactions  at  length  were  ever  printed;  and 
therefore  am  surprised  to  find  that  the  convention  at 
Philadelphia  had  a  full  account  of  that  important  bu- 
siness before  them  for  their  guidance.  Dr.  Nichols 
highly  commends  the  alterations  that  were  then  in- 
tended, and  few  men  were  better  qualified  to  be  com- 
petent judges  of  that  matter.  If  these  circumstances 
be  duly  considered  there  seems  room  to  discriminate 
between  the  motives  which  might  induce  the  con- 
vention at  Philadeiphia  to  make  such  large  subtrac- 
tions from  our  lituj'gy,  and  the  real  propriety  or 
impropriety  of  those  subtractions,  at  least  so  far 
that  the  latter  need  not  be  held  forth  as  a  ground  of 
objection  against  the  candidates  for  consecration,  if 
in  other  respects  the  candidates  themselves  should 
be  found  unexceptionable,  and  should  readily  profess 
a  sound  and  unequivocal  belief  in  the  fundamental 
articles  of  our  faith;  for  this  will  surely  justify  their 
consecration  before  God  and  man;  and  more  espe- 
cially if  they  will  previously  engage  and  promise,  that 
when  they  have  received  authority,  they  w  ill  not  lay 
hands  on  any  man  except  on  the  like  christian  condi- 
tions, independent  of  all  national  forms  and  rituals  of 


380 

mere  human  authority,  which  cannot  annul  the  ne- 
cessity of  maintaining  an  ortJiodox  ministry  in  Christ's 
Episcopal  Church,  howsoever  the  governments  under 
which  they  hve,  should  think  proper  to  model  the 
public  forms  of  worship  for  their  respective  jurisdic- 
tions.    And  therefore  I  beg  leave  humbly  to  submit 
to  your  grace,  that  if  any  notice  is  to  be  taken  of  the 
late  rejection  of  creeds fiom  the  liturgy  in  your  grace's 
intended  answer  to  the  American  requisition :  whether, 
instead  of  stating  that  measure  as  a  just  cause  of  re- 
fusal, it  may  not  be  more  advisable  to  mention  it 
rather  as  a  just  cause  for  your  exhorting  and  giving 
them  timely  warning  not  to  send  c^ver  any  candidates 
for  consecration,  but  such  as  are  known  to  profess  a 
sound  belief  in  the  fundamental  articles  of  the  Chris- 
tian faithl  and  more  particularly  in  the  Scriptural 
doctrine  of  the  holy  trinity,  and  in  the  real  personali- 
ty and  actual  agency  of  the  holy  spirit  as  the  divine 
comforter  and  instructor  to  the  end  of  the  world? 
For  these  necessary  articles  of  faith  are  not  more 
perverted  by  tlie  Socinians,  than  by  a  sect  professing 
principles  diametrically  opposite  to  them,  I  mean  the 
modern  Mysticks,  who  assert  that  Chnst  is  the  only 
God;  though  the  effect  of  these  very  opposite  tenets  is 
precisely  the  same,  viz.  that  both  sects  are  led  to 
deny  the  personality  of  the  holy  spirit;  and  therefore, 
by  what  spirit  they  are  so  led,  we  may  fairly  judge 
by  the  fruits.  Some  Americans  have  lately  adopted 
these  strange  notions,  which  is  the  reason  of  my 
mentioning  them,"  &c. 


^1 


381 

Letter  to  Dr.  Franklin. 
•    Old  Jeivry,  London,  Jlugust  19,  1786. 
Dear  sir, 

Nothing  could  have  been  more  truly  acceptable 
to  me  than  your  excellency's  obliging  present  of  the 
new  American  Prayer  Book;  and  the  more  especi- 
ally, as  I  had  the  happiness  of  finding  that  the  con- 
vention have  retained  in  the  litany  and  other  pray- 
ers, as  well  as  in  the  articles  of  religion,  an  ample 
testimony  to  the  most  essential  doctrines  of  the 
church  of  England,  and  that  they  have  really  pro* 
ceeded  upon  the  plan  laid  down  by  the  king's  com- 
missioners in  1689,  of  whom  my  own  grandfather 
(afterwards  archbishop  Shai'p)  was  one,  who  took  a 
very  active  part  in  that  business,  though  he  is  not 
mentioned  in  the  preface  of  the  new  Prayer  Book. 
This  I  discovered  by  a  MS.  account  of  my  grand- 
father's life,  much  about  the  time  that  many  vague 
reports  were  current  here,  of  immoderate  and  un- 
justifiable  changes  made  in  the  liturgy  by  tjie  Ameri- 
can convention:  for  the  Socinians  flattered  them- 
selves (through  a  mere  mistake  of  Dr.  Price,  in  a  note 
which  he  had  added  to  Dr.  Rush's  letter  of  October 
25,  178.5,  as  pubhshed  in  the  newspapers)  that  the 
proceedings  of  the  convention  had  been  '^  similai" 
to  those  of  one  episcopal  congregation  at  Boston, 
which  adopted  a  liturgy — "formed  after  the  manner 
of  Dr.  Clarke  and  Mr.  Lindsey."  These  reports 
would  have  given  me  much  more  uneasiness,  if  the 
perusal  of  Dr.  Smith's  sermon  (preached  before  the 
convention)  had  not  induced  me  to  Jiope  that  the  plan 
of  the  year  1689  would  really  be  adopted  by  the 


382 

convention  as  a  model  of  proceeding;  and  I  was  well 
satisfied  that  the  said  plan  was  sufficiently  orthodox, 
because  I  was  confident,  that  if  it  had  been  other- 
wise, my  grandfather  would  not  have  endeavoured 
to  promote  it.  Nevertheless  the  reports  of  socinian- 
ism  gave  great  offence  to  many  worthy  people  here, 
and  more  especially  to  the  bishops,  who  had  been 
sincerely  disposed  to  promote  the  church  of  Ameri- 
ca, as  declared  in  my  former  letters:  but  on  hearing 
of  the  confident  reports  of  the  Socinians  they  seem- 
ed to  give  up  all  hopes  of  being  able  to  hold  any  com- 
munication with  the  convention.  In  this  state  of  the 
business  I  thought  it  my  duty  to  explain  in  \\Titing 
to  our  worthy  primate,  the  archbishop  of  Canterbu- 
ry, my  reasons  for  hoping  that  the  convention  would 
be  able  to  assign  such  a  reasonable  excuse  for  the 
changes  they  were  reported  to  have  made,  as  might 
be  sufficient  to  remove  that  ground  of  objection 
against  the  candidates  for  consecration,  if,  in  other 
respects,  the  candidates  themselves  were  found  un- 
exceptionable. An  extract  from  that  letter  I  have 
inclosed  for  your  excellency's  perusal,  dated  Febru- 
ary 17,  last:  and  I  earnestly  entreated  that  the  bish- 
ops here,  might,  at  least,  be  prepared  with  authority 
to  dispense  with  the  oaths  in  giving  consecration,  a 
point  which  I  had  also  previously  solicited  in  a  let- 
ter dated  September  13,1 785.  As  the  convention 
transmitted  no  account  of  their  transactions,  when 
they  wrote  to  the  two  archbishops,  tliere  was  no  suffi- 
cient evidence  for  a  direct  confutation  of  the  reports 
respecting  socinianism;  and  therefore  the  great  caution 


383 

and  reserve  expressed  in  the  joint  answer  ofthe  arch- 
bishops was  unquestionably  right  and  perfectly  ne- 
cessary, under  such  a  state  o^  uncertainty  respecting 
chiisiian  doctnne! 

The  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  with  his  usual 
condescension  and  politeness,  was  pleased  to  com- 
municate to  me,  very  lately,  the  contents  of  that  let- 
ter, as  also  the  proposed  forms  of  testimonials  which 
it  enclosed:  and  howsoever  these  may  be  received  by 
the  convention,  I  am  bound  to  acknowledge  my  hear- 
ty approbation  of  them,  being  thoroughly  convinced 
that  they  were  dictated  by  the  most  unaffected  sin- 
cerity of  heart,  and  (I  may  even  say)  apostolical  con- 
cern for  the  promotion  of  the  true  catholic  church  in 
America. 

Nevertheless,  the  archbishops  have  not  yet  re- 
ceived any  acknowledgment  that  their  letter  has 
reached  America,  except  the  short  mention  of  it  in 
your  excellency's  obliging  letter  to  me.  Had  the 
gentlemen,  deputed  by  the  convention  to  correspond 
with  the  archbishops,  thought  proper  to  send  them 
a  short  general  description  of  the  new  liturgy,  with 
some  account  also  of  the  plan  upon  which  it  was 
formed,  they  would  have  prevented  the  apprehen- 
sions and  suspicions  occasioned  by  the  late  reports 
about  socinianism,  against  which  the  liturgy  itself 
bears  ample  testimony.  I  had  hoped,  however,  that 
nothing  would  have  been  omitted  therein,  but  the  too 
frequent  repetitions  of  our  liturgy:  and  that  if  nicne 
aeeds  than  one  had  been  considered  as  falling  under 
the  same  head  of  correction,  that,  at  least  the  JSicme 


384 

creed  might  have  been  appointed  to  be  used  instead 
of  the  common  creed,  on  some  particular  festivals, 
as  Christmas  Day,  or  Trinity  Sunday,  with  a  discre- 
tionary power  in  the  minister  to  use  occasionally  the 
Athanasian  creed,  as  all  these  creeds  may  equally 
be  proved  by  unquestionable  testimonies  of  scripture. 
Nevertheless  the  resolution  expressed  in  the  preface, 
that  they  dont  mean  to  separate  from  the  church  of 
England  in  principles,  together  with  the  unequivo- 
cal declarations  still  retained  in  the  new  liturgy  of 
the  indispensable  faith  and  worship  due  to  the  three 
divine  persons  (whose  existence  in  the  one  divine 
nature  or  godhead  is  so  clearly  revealed  in  scrip- 
ture, and  into  whose  religious  service  we  are  equally 
enlisted  by  the  baptismal  profession  and  vows  being 
made  expressly  in  the  names  of  all  the  three)  must 
undoubtedly  give  sincere  satisfaction  to  all  true  chris- 
tians, notwithstanding  the  omission  of  several  other 
things  which  they  would  wish  to  have  been  also  re- 
tained.    And,  therefore,  from  my  confidence  of  the 
unexceptionable  religious  character  of  the  English 
bishops  in  general  (without  waiting  to  hear  their 
sentiments  declared  by  themselves)  I  may  venture  to 
repeat  what  I  asserted  in  my  former  letters,  that  the 
bishops  of  England  will  be  still  sincerely  inclined  to 
promote  the  welfare  of  the  episcopal  churches  in 
America,  and  to  maintain  an  affectionate  communi- 
cation with  them  as  sister  churches,  provided  that 
the  gentlemen  elected  to  be  sent  for  consecration  are 
really  in  themselves  unexceptionable:  and  I  have  the 
satisfaction  to  inform  your  excellency,  that  the  arch- 
bishops have  already  prepared  themselves  to  com- 


385 

ply  with  the  requisition  of  the  American  churches, 
by  obtaining  an  act  of  Parliament  in  the  last  session 
to  remove  the  former  difficulty  about  the  oaths,  a  co- 
py of  which  is  inclosed.  The  late  accounts  in  the 
public  papers,  that  the  episcopal  churches  of  Virgi- 
nia and  New  York  had  elected  candidates  for  the 
Episcopal  Office  in  their  respective  Provinces,  gave 
me  very  particular  satisfaction,  because  I  had  under- 
stood from  former  accounts  that  the  general  con- 
vention had  nominated  the  candidates;  which  would 
have  been  a  dangerous  precedentof  infringement  on 
the  ancient  rights  of  the  clergy  and  people  in  each 
province  respectively  to  elect  tJieir  own  bishops;  and 
I  should  have  had  still  much  more  sincere  satisfac- 
tion if  these  two  provinces  had  adopted  the  Apostolic 
mode  of  electing  tioo  unexceptionable  candidates  for 
each  see,  whose  acceptance  should  be  determined  by 
lot,  as  revived  by  the  Spanish  bishops  in  the  coun^ 
cil  of  Barcelona  (see  my  tract  on  congregational 
courts  p.  89,  90.)  but  perhaps,  upon  the  whole,  it 
may  be  more  prudent  to  defer  tJie  decision  of  tJie  lot, 
until  three  or  four  bishops  are  actually  resident  in 
America;  who  can  then  more  effectually  examine 
(as  their  apostolical  duty  requires)  the  qualifications 
and  characters  of  the  elected  candidates,  by  calling 
upon  the  people,  publickly,  for  information  whether 
any  just  exceptions  are  known,  before  the  lot  is  cast, 
because  even  a  legal  exception  would  seem  to  be 
made  too  late,  if  discovered  after  the  solemn  appeal 
to  Divine  Providence  by  lot  and  previous  prayer;  for 
in  such  a  case  there  seems  to  be  no  alternative:  no- 

3  c 


386 

thing  but  an  humble  submission  and  rehance  on  the 
same  Providence,  for  all  the  future  consequences  of 
the  decision  whatever  they  may  be;  unless  some  sub- 
sequent misconduct  should  render  the  interference 
of  the  other  bishops  necessary. 

I  send  herewith  a  duplicate  of  my  letter  respect- 
ing a  paper  currency  not  liable  to  depreciation,  which 
was  sent  by  the  Mediator,  capt.  Kennydy;  and  I  re- 
main with  true  respect  and  esteem,  dear  sir, 

Your  excellency's  most  obliged 
Humble  servant, 

Granville  Sharp. 
His  excellency  Benjamin  Franklin,  Esq. 
President  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania. 

No.  13.  Page  137. 

An  act  of  the  general  convention  of  clerical  and  lay 
deputies  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church,  in 
the  states  of  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylva- 
nia, Delaware  and  South  Carolina,  held  at  Wil- 
mington, in  the  state  of  Delaware,  on  Wednesday, 
the  11th  of  October,  1786. 

Whereas,  at  a  general  convention  of  clerical  and 
lay  deputies  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church  in 
sundry  of  the  United  States  of  America,  viz.  New 
York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Mary- 
land, Virginia  and  South  Carolina,  holden  at  the  ci- 
ty of  Philadelphia,  on  the  Tuesday  before  the  feast 
of  St.  Michael,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord,  1785,  and 
divers  subsequent  days,  it  was  agreed  and  declared, 
that  "  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  and  Administra- 


387 

tion  of  the  Sacraments  and  other  Rites  and  Cere- 
monies of  the  Church,  according  to  the  use  of  the 
Church  of  England/'  should  be  continued  to  be  used 
by  this  church,  as  the  same  was  altered  by  the  said 
convention,  in  a  certain  instrument  of  writing,  pas- 
sed by  tlieir  authority,  entitled,  "  alterations  of  the 
liturgy  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  cliurch,  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  in  order  to  render  the 
same  conformable  to  the  American  revolution  and 
the  constitutions  of  the  respective  states;"  And  it 
was  further  agreed  and  declared,  that  the  Book  of 
Common  Prayer  and  Administration  of  the  Sacra- 
ments and  other  Rites  and  Ceremonies  of  the  church, 
according  to  the  use  of  the  church  of  England,  as 
altered  by  an  instrument  of  writing  passed  under 
the  authority  of  the  aforesaid  convention,  entitled 
"  Alterations  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  and 
Administration  of  the  Sacraments  and  other  Rites 
and  Ceremonies  of  the  church,  according  to  the  use 
of  the  church  of  England,  proposed  and  recommend- 
ed to  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  should  be  used  in  this  church, 
when  the  same  should  have  been  ratified  by  the  con- 
ventions which  had  respectively  sent  deputies  to  the 
said  general  convention;" — And  thereupon  the  said 
convention,  anxious  to  complete  their  Episcopal  sys- 
tem by  means  of  the  church  of  England,  did  tran- 
scribe and  transmit  an  address  to  the  most  reverend 
and  right  reverend  the  archbishops  of  Canterbury 
and  York,  and  the  bishops  of  the  church  of  England, 
earnestly  entreating  that  venerable  body  to  confer 


388 

the  Episcopal  character  on  such  persons  as  should 
be  recommended  by  this  church,  in  the  several  states 
so  represented: 

And  whereas  the  clerical  and  lay  deputies  of  this 
church,  have  received  the  most  friendly  and  affec- 
tionate letters  in  answer  to  the  said  address,  from 
the  said  archbishops  and  bishops,  opening  a  fair  pros- 
pect of  the  success  of  their  said  apphcations;  but  at 
the  same  time  earnestly  exhorting  this  convention  to 
use  their  utmost  exertions  for  the  removal  of  certain 
objections  by  them  made,  against  some  parts  of  the 
alterations  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  and  Rites 
and  Ceremonies  of  this  church,  last  mentioned;  In 
pursuance  whereof,  this  present  general  convention 
hath  been  called  and  is  now  assembled;  and  being 
sincerely  disposed  to  give  every  satisfaction  to  their 
lordships,  which  will  be  consistent  with  the  union 
and  general  content  of  the  church  they  represent; 
and  declaring  their  steadfast  resolution  to  maintain 
the  same  essential  articles  of  faith  and  discipline  with 
the  church  of  England: 

JYow  tJiere/ore,  the  said  deputies  do  hereby  deter- 
mine and  declare. 

First,  That  in  the  creed  commonly  called  the 
Apostle's  creed,  these  words — "  He  descended  into 
Hell,''  shall  be  and  continue  a  part  of  that  creed. 

Secondly,  That  the  Nicene  creed  shall  also  be 
inserted  in  the  said  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  im- 
mediately after  the  Apostle's  creed,  prefaced  with 
the  Kubrick  lor  this.] 


389 

^ind  whereas,  In  consequence  of  the  objections 
expressed  by  their  lordships  to  the  alterations  in  the 
book  of  Common  Prayer  last  mentioned,  the  con- 
ventions in  some  of  the  states,  represented  in  this 
general  convention,  have  suspended  the  latification 
and  use  of  the  said  book  of  Common  Prayer,  by  rea- 
son whereof  it  will  be  improper  that  persons  to  be 
consecrated  or  ordained  as  bishops,  priests  or  dea- 
cons, respectively,  should  subscribe  the  declaration 
contained  in  the  tenth  article  of  the  general  ecclesi- 
astical constitution,  without  some  modification. 

Therefore,  it  is  hereby  determined  and  declared, 
Thirdly,  That  the  second  clause  so  to  be  sub- 
scribed by  a  bishop,  priest  or  deacon  of  this  church, 
in  any  of  the  states  which  have  not  already  ratified 
or  used  the  last  mentioned  book  of  Common  Prayer, 
shall  be  in  the  words  following — "  And  I  do  solemnly 
engage  to  conform  to  the  doctrine  and  worship  of 
the  protestant  episcopal  church,  according  to  the  use 
of  the  church  of  England,  as  the  same  is  altered  by 
the  general  convention,  in  a  certain  instrument  of 
writing,  passed  by  their  authority,  entitled,  jilterations 
of  the  Liturgy  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  United  States  of  America,  in  order  to  render 
the  same  conformable  to  the  Amencan  revolution  and 
the  constitutions  of  the  respective  States,  until  the  new 
book  of  Common  Prayer,  recommended  by  the  ge- 
neral convention,  shall  be  ratified  or  used  in  the  state 
in  which  I  am  (bishop,  priest  or  deacon,  as  the  case 
may  be)  by  the  authority  of  the  convention  thereof. 


390 

And  I  do  further  solemnly  engage,  that  when  the 
said  new  book  of  Comnion  Prayer  shall  be  ratified 
or  used  by  the  authority  of  the  convention  in  the  state 
for  which  I  am  consecrated  a  bishop  (or  ordained  a 
priest  or  deacon)  I  will  conform  to  the  doctrines  and 
worship  of  the  protestant  episcopal  church,  as  settled 
and  determined  in  the  last  mentioned  book  of  Com- 
mon Prayer  and  administration  of  the  sacraments, 
set  forth  by  the  general  convention  of  the  protestant 
episcopal  churcli  in  the  United  States." 

And  it  is  hereby  further  determined  and  declared, 
That  these  words  in  the  preface  to  the  new  pro- 
posed book  of  Common  Prayer,  viz.  "  In  the  creed 
commonly  called  the  apostle^s  creed,  one  clause  is 
omitted  as  being  of  uncertain  meaning;  and" — to- 
gether with  the  note  referred  to  in  that  place,  be, 
from  henceforth,  no  part  of  the  preface  to  the  said 
proposed  book  of  Common  Prayer. 

And  it  is  hereby  further  determined  and  declared, 
That  the  fourth  article  of  religion  in  the  new 
proposed  book  of  Common  Prayer,  be  altered  to  ren- 
der it  conformable  to  the  adoption  of  the  Nicene 
creed,  as  follows,  "  of  the  creeds.  The  two  creeds, 
namely,  that  commonly  called  the  apostle's  creed  and 
the  Nicene  creed,  ought  to  be  received  and  beUeved, 
because  they,"  &c.  &c. 

Done  in  general  convention .  at  Wilmington, 
in  the  state  of  Delaware,  the  day  and 
year  first  aforesaid. 


391 

No.  li.  Page  162. 

To  all  persons  to  whom  these  presents  sliall  come, 
or  whom  the  same  shall  or  may  in  any  wise  or  at 
any  time  concern,  we,  John,  by  divine  Providence, 
lord  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  primate  of  all  Eng- 
land, and  metropolitan,  send  greeting 

Whereas  by  an  act  of  Parliament  passed  at  West- 
minster, in  the  twenty-sixth  year  of  the  reign  of  our 
sovereign  lord  George  the  third,  king  of  Great  Bri- 
tain, France  and  Ireland,  entituled,  "  An  act  to  em- 
power the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  or  the  arch- 
bishop of  York,  for  the  time  being,  to  consecrate  to 
the  office  of  a  bishop,  persons  being  subjects  or  citi- 
zens of  countries  out  of  his  majesty^s  dominions,"  it 
is  enacted,  that  it  shall  and  may  be  lawful  to  and 
for  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  or  the  archbishop 
of  York,  for  the  time  being,  together  with  such 
other  bishops  as  they  shall  call  to  their  assistance, 
to  consecrate  persons,  being  subjects  or  citizens  of 
countries  out  of  his  majesty's  dominions,  bishops, 
for  the  purposes  aforesaid,  without  the  king's  license 
for  their  election,  or  the  royal  mandate  under  the 
great  seal  for  their  confirmation  and  consecration, 
and  without  requiring  them  to  take  the  oaths  of  al- 
legiance and  supremacy,  and  the  oath  of  due  obedi- 
ence to  the  archbishop  for  the  time  being.  Provided 
always,  that  no  persons  shall  be  consecrated  bishops 
in  the  manner  herein  provided,  until  the  archbishop 
of  Canterbury,  or  the  archbishop  of  York,  for  the 
time  being,  shall  have  first  applied  for  and  obtained 


392 


his  majesty^s  license,  by  warrant  under  his  royal  sig- 
net and  sign  manual,  authorising  and  empowering 
him  to  perform  such  consecration,  and  expressing 
the  name  or  names  of  the  persons  so  to  be  consecra- 
ted, nor  until  the  said  archbishop  has  been  fully  as- 
certained of  their  sufficiency  in  good  learning,  of  the 
soundness  of  their  faith,  and  of  the  purity  of  their 
manners.  Provided  also,  and  be  it  hereby  declared, 
that  no  person  or  persons  consecrated  to  the  office 
of  a  bishop  in  the  manner  aforesaid,  nor  any  person 
or  persons  deriving  their  consecration  from  or  under 
any  bishop  so  consecrated,  nor  any  person  or  per- 
sons admitted  to  the  order  of  deacon  or  priest  by  any 
bishop  or  bishops  so  consecrated,  or  by  the  succes- 
sor or  successors  of  any  bishop  or  bishops  so  conse- 
crated, shall  be  thereby  enabled  to  exercise  his  or 
their  respective  office  or  offices  within  his  majesty's 
dominions.  Provided  always,  and  be  it  further  en- 
acted, That  a  certificate  of  such  consecration  shall 
be  given  under  the  hand  and  seal  of  the  archbishop 
who  consecrates,  containing  the  name  of  the  person 
so  consecrated,  with  the  addition,  as  well  of  the  coun- 
try whereof  he  is  a  subject  or  citizen,  as  of  the 
church  in  which  he  is  appointed  bishop,  and  the  fur- 
ther description  of  his  not  having  taken  the  said  oaths, 
being  exempted  from  the  obligation  of  so  doing  by 
virtue  of  this  act. — Now,  know  all  men  by  these  pre- 
sents, that  we,  the  said  John  lord  archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  having  obtained  his  majesty's  license,  by 
warrant  under  his  royal  signet  and  sign  manual,  did, 
in  pursuance  of  the  said  act  of  Parhament,  on  Sun- 


393 

day,  the  fourth  day  of  February,  in  the  year  of  our 
Lord  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  eighty-seven, 
in  the  chapel  of  our  palace,  at  Lambeth,  in  the  coun- 
ty of  Surry,  admit  our  beloved  in  Christ,  William 
White,  clerk,  D.  D.  a  subject  or  citizen  of  the  state 
of  Pennsylvania,  in  North  America,  and  rector  of 
Christ  church  and  St.  Peter's,  in  the  city  of  Phila- 
delphia, in  the  said  state,  of  whose  sufficiency  in  good 
learning,  soundness  in  the  faith,  and  purity  of  man- 
ners we  were  fully  ascertained,  into  the  office  of  a 
bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church,  in  the 
state  of  Pennsylvania  aforesaid,  to  which  the  said 
William  White  hath  been  elected  by  the  convention 
for  the  said  state,  as  appears  unto  us  by  due  testi- 
mony thereof  by  him  produced,  and  him  the  said 
William  White  did  then  and  there  rightly  and  ca- 
nonically  consecrate  a  bishop,  according  to  the  man- 
ner and  form  prescribed  and  used  by  the  church  of 
England,  his  taking  the  oaths  of  allegiance,  supre- 
macy, and  canonical  obedience  only  excepted,  he 
being  exempted  from  the  obligation  of  taking  the 
said  oaths  by  virtue  of  the  above  recited  act.  Provi- 
ded, that  neither  he  the  said  bishop,  nor  any  person 
or  persons  deriving  their  consecration  from  or  under 
him,  nor  any  person  or  persons  admitted  to  the  or- 
der of  deacon  or  priest  by  him,  or  his  successor  or 
successors,  shall  be  enabled  to  exercise  his  or  their 
respective  office  or  offices  within  his  majesty's  domi- 
nions. In  testimony  whereof  we  have  caused  our 
Archi-episcopal  seal  to  be  affixed  to  these  presents, 

3d 


594 

— Given  at  Lambeth  house,  the  day  and  year  above 
written,  and  in  the  fourth  year  of  our  translation. 

J.  (L.  S.)  Cantuar. 

We,  Wilham  lord  archbishop  of  York,  Charles 
lord  bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells,  and  John  lord  bish- 
op of  Peterborough,  were  present  and  assisting  at 
the  consecration  within  mentioned. 

W.  Ebor. 

C.  Bath  and  Wells. 

J.  Peterborough. 

The  signatures  of  the  archbishops  of  Canterbury 
and  York,  and  of  the  bishops  of  Bath  and  Wells, 
and  Peterborough,  were  made  in  my  presence,  Fe- 
bruary 4th,  1787. 

Wm.  Dickes, 
(Copy.)  Secretary  to  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury. 

On  Sunday,  the  fourth  day  of  February,  in  the 
year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and 
eighty-seven,  and  in  the  fourth  year  of  the  transla- 
tion of  the  most  reverend  father  in  God,  John,  by 
Divine  Providence,  lord  archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
primate  of  all  England,  and  metropolitan,  in  the 
chapel  at  the  palace  at  Lambeth,  in  the  county  of 
Surry,  the  said  most  reverend  father  in  God,  by  vir- 
tue and  authority  of  a  certain  hcense  or  warrant 
from  his  most  gracious  majesty,  and  our  sovereign 
lord  George  the  third,  by  the  grace  of  God,  of  Great 
Britain,  France  and  Ireland,  king,  defender  of  the 
faith,  and  so  forth,  to  him,  in  this  behalf,  directed. 


c 


395 

the  most  reverend  father  in  God,  Wilham,  by  the 
same  Providence,  lord  archbishop  of  York,  primate 
of  England,  and  metropoUtan,  and  the  right  reverend 
fatliers  in  God,  Charles,  by  divine  permission,  lord 
bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells,  and  John,  by  divine  per- 
mission, lord  bishop  of  Peterborough,  assisting  him, 
consecrated  the  reverend  William  White,  doctor  in 
divinity,  rector  of  Christ  church  and  St.  Peter's,  in 
the  city  of  Philadelphia,  a  subject  or  citizep  of  the 
United  States  of  North  America,  and  the  reverend 
Samuel  Provoost,  doctor  in  divinity,  rector  of  Trinity 
church,  in  the  city  of  New  York,  a  subject  or  citizen 
also  of  the  United  States  of  North  America,  to  the 
office  of  a  bishop,  respectively,  the  rites,  circum- 
stances and  ceremonies  anciently  used  in  the  church 
of  England  being  observed  and  applied,  according  to 
the  tenor  of  an  act  passed  in  the  twenty-sixth  year 
of  the  reign  of  his  said  majesty,  entituled  "  An  act 
to  empower  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  or  the 
archbishop  of  York,  for  the  time  being,  to  consecrate 
to  the  office  of  a  bishop,  persons  being  subjects  or 
citizens  of  countries  out  of  his  majesty's  dominions," 
in  the  presence  of  me,  Robert  Jenner,  notary  public, 
one  of  the  deputy  registers  of  the  province  of  Can- 
terbury, being  then  and  there  present,  the  reverend 
and  worshipful  William  Backhouse,  doctor  in  di- 
vinity, archdeacon  of  Canterburj',  the  Rev. 

Lort,  doctor  in  divinity,  the  Rev. Drake,  doc- 
tor in  divinity,  William  Dickes,  Esquire,  notar}'  pub- 
lic, secretary  to  his  grace  the  said  lord  archbishop  of 


396 

Canterbury,  with  many  others  in  great  numbers  then 
and  there  assembled.     Which  I  attest. 

Rt.  Jenner, 
(Copy.)  Notary  Public,  actuary  assumed. 

And  we,  the  underwritten  notaries  public,  by 
royal  authority  duly  admitted  and  sworn,  residing  in 
doctor's  Commons,  London,  do  hereby  certify  and 
attest,  to  all  whom  it  may  concern,  that  Robert  Jen- 
ner, whose  name  is  subscribed  to  the  aforegoing  act, 
was  and  is  a  notary  public,  and  one  of  the  deputy 
registers  of  the  province  of  Canterbury,  and  that  the 
letters,  name  and  words  "  Rt.  Jenner,  notary  pub- 
lic," thereto  subscribed,  were  and  are  of  the  proper 
hand  writing  and  subscription  of  the  said  Robert 
Jenner,  and  that  we  saw  him  sign  the  same,  and  that 
full  faith  and  entire  credit  is  and  ought  to  be  given 
to  all  the  acts,  subscriptions  and  attestations  of  the 
said  Robert  Jenner,  as  well  in  judgment  as  out.  In 
testimony  whereof  we  have  hereunto  subscribed  our 
names,  to  serve  and  avail  as  occasion  may  require, 
at  doctor's  Commons.  London,  this  fifth  day  of  Feb- 
ruary, in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  seven 
hundred  and  eighty-seven.     Which  we  attest. 

Edward  Cooper,  Notary  Pubhc. 

(Copy.)  William  Abbot,  Notary  Pubhc. 

No.  15.  p.  162. 
Note  of  the  Archbishop. 
The  archbishop  desires  to  have  the  proper  direc- 
tion for  a  letter  to  bishop  White  at  Falmouth;  where  if 
he  can  find  time,  he  means  to  send  a  letter  to  Dr. 


397 

Chandler.  If  he  should  not  be  able  to  write  to  Dr. 
Chandler,  he  begs  tlie  bishop  to  assure  him  of  his 
affectionate  esteem  and  regard,  and  his  hearty  prayers 
for  his  better  health.  He  wishes  also  for  such  a  di- 
rection, as  will  be  most  proper  for  a  letter,  should 
occasion  call  for  one,  to  the  bishop  in  Philadelphia. 
It  is  proper  that  the  bishops  should  be  informed, 
that  the  archbishop  was  mistaken  about  the  conse- 
crations in  the  province  of  York.  They  have  always 
been  attended  by  two  bishops  with  the  archbishop. 

No.  16.  p.  163. 

1 .  Frotn  his  excellency  Richard  Henry  Lee,  Esq. 
president  of  congress,  to  the  Hon.  John  Adams,  Esq. 
J\Enister  Plenipotentiary  to  the  Court  of  Great  Bri- 
tain.* 

JVew  York,  October  2^,  1785. 
Dear  Sir, 

Having  yesterday  written  a  long  letter  to  you,  I 
have  now  only  to  request  your  attention  to  the  fol- 
lowing business,  which  is  of  very  great  importance 
to  those  whom  it  concerns;  and  who  form  a  con- 
siderable portion  of  the  citizens  of  these  states.  The 
representatives  of  those  professing  the  church  of 
England  system  of  religion,  having  been  lately  as- 

*  In  the  answer  of  Mr.  Adams,  he  calls  Mr.  Lee  "  late  presi- 
dent of  Congress."  The  presidency  of  the  latter  ended  two  days 
after  his  writing  of  the  letter,  as  appears  from  the  printed  Jour- 
nals of  the  body,  and  the  circumstance  must  have  been  known 
to  Mr.  Adams.  Therefore,  the  letter  was  written  while  Mr 
Lee  was  president,  and  must  have  been  designed  to  carry  with 
it  the  weight  of  his  ofl&cial  character." 


398 

sembled  at  Philadelphia,  where  lay  and  clerical  de- 
puties from  seven  states  were  convened  in  general 
convention,  for  the  purpose,  among  other  things,  of 
preserving  and  maintaining  a  succession  of  divines 
in  their  church,  in  a  manner  which  they  judge  con- 
sonant to  the  gospel,  and  no  way  interfering  with 
the  religious  or  civil  rights  of  others,  have  sent  an  ad- 
dress to  the  archbishops  and  bishops  of  England 
proposing  a  plan  for  the  consecration  of  American 
bishops. — It  is  imagined  that  before  any  thing  is 
done  in  this  business  by  the  bishops  of  England, 
they  will  consult  the  king  and  ministry;  who  it  is 
apprehended  may  now,  as  heretofore,  suppose  that 
any  step  of  the  kind  being  taken  in  England,  might 
be  considered  here  as  an  officious  intermeddling  with 
our  affairs  that  would  give  offence  on  this  side  the  wa- 
ter— Should  this  be  the  case,  the  church  of  England 
members  of  congress  have  the  greatest  reliance  on 
your  liberal  regard  for  the  religious  rights  of  all  men, 
that  you  will  remove  mistaken  scruples  from  the 
mind  of  administration,  by  representing  how  perfect- 
ly consonant  it  is  with  our  revolution  principles,  pro- 
fessed throughout  all  these  states,  that  every  deno- 
mination of  christians  has  a  right  to  pursue  its  own 
religious  modes,  interfering  not  with  others.  That 
instead  of  giving  offence,  it  must  give  content  by  evi- 
dencing a  friendly  disposition  to  accommodate  the 
people  here  who  are  members  of  the  church  in  ques- 
tion. 

In  proof  of  this,  congress  did  lately  show  their 
attention  to  the  accommodation  of  this  class  of  chris- 


399 

tians,  by  communicating  to  the  different  executives 
your  information  from  the  Danish  Minister  of  that 
king's  wiHingness  to  facihtate  the  business  of  ordina- 
tion for  our  church,  and  the  assembly  of  Virginia 
hath  incorporated  this  society,  under  which  act  of 
incorporation  the  assembly  was  held  in  that  state,  that 
sent  both  lay  and  clerical  deputies  to  the  general 
convention  lately  held  in  Philadelphia. 

I  have  the  honour  to  be,  with  sentiments  of  the 
truest  esteem  and  regard,  dear  Sir,  your  most  obe- 
dient and  very  humble  servant, 

Richard  Henry  Lee. 

His  Excellency  John  Adams,  Esq.  Minister  Pleni- 
potentiary from  the  United  States  of  America  to  the 
Court  of  London,  at  his  house  in  Ch'osven&r  square 
London. 

2.  From  Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Lee,  in  ansiver.* 
Grosvenor  Square,  January  4,  1786. 
Dear  Sir, 

A  day  or  two  after  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of 
November  1,  and  that  of  Mr.  Jay's  which  came  with 
it,  I  wrote  to  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  by  Col. 
Smith,  for  an  hour  when  I  might  have  the  honour  to 
pay  my  respects  to  his  grace,  and  was  answered  very 
politely,  that  he  would  be  glad  to  have  the  honour  of 
seeing  me,  next  day,  between  eleven  and  twelve. 
Accordingly  I  went  yesterday,  and  was  very  agreeably 

*  There  is  in  possession  a  copy  of  a  letter  to  John  Jay,  Esq. 
containing  the  same  in  substance;  it  being  in  answer  to  a  letter 
ef  that  gentleman,  then  secretary  of  State  for  foreign  affairs. 


400 

received,  by  a  venerable  and  a  candid  prelate,  with 
whom  I  had  before  only  exchanged  visits  of  ceremo- 
ny. I  told  his  grace,  that  at  the  desire  of  two  very 
respectable  characters  in  America,  the  late  president 
of  congress  and  the  present  secretary  of  state  for  the 
department  of  foreign  affairs,  1  had  the  honour  to  be 
the  bearer  to  his  grace  of  a  letter  from  a  convention 
of  delegates  from  the  episcopal  churches  in  most  of 
the  southern  states,  which  had  been  transmitted  to 
me  open,  that  1  might  be  acquainted  with  its  contents. 
That  in  this  business  however,  I  acted  in  no  official 
character,  having  no  instructions  from  congress,  nor 
indeed  from  the  convention;  but  I  thought  it  most 
respectful  to  them,  as  well  as  to  his  grace,  to  present 
the  letter  in  person. — The  archbishop  answered, 
that  all  that  he  could  say  at  present  was,  that  he  was 
himself  very  well  disposed  to  give  the  satisfaction  de- 
sired— for  that  he  was  by  no  means  one  of  those  who 
wished  that  contention  should  be  kept  up  between 
the  two  countries,  or  between  one  party  and  another 
in  America — but  on  the  contrary,  was  desirous  of 
doing  every  thing  in  his  power  to  promote  harmony 
and  good- humour. — I  then  said,  that  if  his  grace 
would  take  the  trouble  of  reading  two  letters  from 
Mr.  Lee  and  Mr.  Jay,  he  would  perceive  the  motives 
of  those  gentlemen  in  sending  the  letter  to  my  care — 
I  gave  him  the  letters,  which  he  read  attentively  and 
returned,  and  added  that  it  was  a  great  satisfaction 
to  him  to  see,  that  gentlemen  of  character  and  re- 
putation interested  themselves  in  it — for  that  the  epis- 
copahans  in  the  United  States  could  not  have  the  full 


401 

and  complete  enjoyment  of  their  religious  liberties 
without  it — and  he  subjoined  that  it  was  also  a  great 
satisfaction  to  him,  to  have  received  this  visit  from 
me  upon  this  occasion — and  he  would  take  the  li- 
berty to  ask  mc,  if  it  were  not  an  improper  question, 
whether  the  interposition  of  the  English  bishops — 
would  not  give  uneasiness  and  dissatisfaction  in  Ame- 
rica.— I  replied  that  my  answer  could  be  only  that 
of  a  private  citizen,  and  in  that  capacity  I  had  no 
scruple  to  say  that  the  people  of  the  United  States 
in  general  were  for  a  liberal  and  generous  toleration. 
I  might  indeed  employ  a  stronger  word,  and  call  it 
a  right,  and  the  first  right  of  mankind,  to  worship 
God  according  to  their  consciences,  and  therefore 
that  I  could  not  see  any  reasonable  ground  for  dis- 
satisfaction, and  that  I  hoped  and  believed  that  there 
would  be  none  of  any  consequence. 

His  grace  was  then  pleased  to  say,  that  religion 
in  all  countries,  especially  a  young  one,  ought  to  be 
attended  to,  as  it  was  the  foundation  of  governnjent 
He  hoped  the  characters  w^hich  should  be  recom- 
mended, would  be  good  ones.  I  replied  that  there 
were  in  the  churches  in  America,  able  men  of  char- 
acters altogether  irreprgachable — and  that  such  and 
such  only,  I  presumed,  would  be  recommended.  I 
then  rose  to  take  my  leave,  and  his  grace  then  asked 
me,  if  he  might  be  at  liberty  to  mention,  that  I  had 
made  him  this  visit  upon  this  occasion.  I  answered — 
certainly,  if  his  grace  should  judge  it  proper.  Thus, 
sir,  I  have  fulfilled  my  commision,  and  remain  as 

3e 


402 

usual— your  sincere  friend  and  most  obedient  servant, 
Ji  tiiie  Copy,  John  Adams. 

Richard  Henry  Lee. 

3.  Letter  of  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  to  Mr. 
Mams. 

Lambeth  House,  Febn^ary  21,  1786. 
Sir, 

After  full  communication  with  the  archbishop  of 
York,  and  the  bishops,  on  the  subject  of  the  address, 
which  you  delivered  to  me  from  the  deputies  of 
the  protestant  episcopal  church,  in  convention  in 
Philadelphia,  I  concur  with  them  in  requesting  the 
favour  of  you,  to  forward  our  answer  to  the  commit- 
tee appointed  to  receive  it.  Duplicates  of  the  an- 
swer accompany  this  letter;  which,  if  sent  by  differ- 
ent ships,  we  hope  may  give  a  better  chance  of  the 
early  arrival  of  one  of  them. 

I  have  the  honour  to  be. 
Sir,  your  most  obedient 
Humble  servant, 

J.  Cantuar. 

4.  Certificate  of  the  Supreme  Executive  Council  of 
Pennsylvania. 

Pennsylvania,  ss. 

The  Supreme  Executive  Council  of  the  Common^ 
wealth  of  Pennsylvania 
Do  hereby  certify  and  make  known  to  all  whom 
it  may  concern,  that  agreeably  to  the  frame  of  go- 
vernment and  laws  of  this  commonwealth — the  cler- 


403 

gy  and  others,  members  of  the  church  of  England 
in  Pennsylvania,  are  at  liberty  to  take  such  means 
as  they  may  think  proper  for  keeping  up  a  succes- 
sion of  religious  teachers — Provided  only,  that  the 
means  they  adopt  for  this  purpose  do  not  induce 
a  subjection  to  any  foreign  jurisdiction  civil  or  eccle- 
siastical. 

Given  in  council  under  the  hand  of  the  honour- 
able Charles  Biddle,  Esquire,  Vice  President,  and  the 
seal  of  the  State,  at  Philadelphia,  this  twenty-fourth 
day  of  November  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thou- 
sand seven  hundred  and  eighty-five,  and  in  the  tenth 
yeai'  of  the  commonwealth — 

Charles  Biddle,  V.  P. 
(Attest)  John  Armstrong,  Jr.  Sec. 

5.  A  cetiijicafe  of  his  excellency  Patrick  Henry,  Esq. 

Governor  of  Virginia* 
By  his  excellency  Patrick  Henry  Esq.  governm^  of  the 
commonwealth  of  Virginia. 
It  is  certified  and  made  known  to  all  whom  it 
maj  concern — That  the  protestant  episcopal  church 
is  incorporated  by  an  act  of  the  legislature  of  this 
commonwealth,  for  that  purpose  made  and  provided: 
that  there  is  no  law  existing  in  this  commonwealth, 
which  in  any  manner  forbids  the  admission  of  bish- 
ops, or  the  exercise  of  their  office*  on  the  contrary, 
by  the  16th  article  of  the  declaration  of  rights,  it  is 

*  This  copy  of  the  certificate  of  the  governor  of  Virginia, 
was  sent  to  the  author  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Griffith,  bishop  elect  of 
that  state,  to  be  laid  before  the  convention  of  October,  1786 


404 

provided  in  the  words  following,  viz. — "  That  reli- 
gion, or  the  duty  which  we  owe  to  our  Creator,  and 
the  manner  of  discharging,  can  be  directed  only  by 
reason  and  conviction,  not  by  force  or  violence,  and 
therefore  all  men  are  equally  entitled  to  the  free  exer- 
cise of  religion,  according  to  the  dictates  of  con- 
science; and  that  it  is  the  mutual  duty  of  all,  to  practice 
christian  forbearance,  love  and  charity  towards  each 
other," — which  said  article  is  now  in  full  force. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my 
hand,  and  caused  the  seal  of  the  commonwealth  to 
be  affixed  at  Richmond,  this  first  day  of  June,  in  the 
year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and 
eighty-six,  and  tenth  of  the  commonwealth. 

P.  Henrit. 

No.  17.  p.  163. 

From  Richard  Peters,  Esq. 

London,  March  4,  1 786. 
Gentlemen, 

I  yesterday  waited  on  the  archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury, who  received  me  with  great  politeness.  I  de- 
livered the  parcels  you  sent  by  me,  but  he  had  pre- 
viously received  the  originals.  He  opened  the  con- 
versation by  saying,  that  on  receipt  of  the  address 
from  the  convention,  which  was  conceived  in  terms 
that  gave  great  satisfaction,  the  bishops  had  de- 
termined at  once  to  comply  with  it,  if  the  govern- 
ment would  enable  them  by  passing  a  law  for  the 
purpose.  But  hearing  a  number  of  reports,  which 
the  committee  had  not  put  it  in  their  power  to  clear 


405 

up,  by  sending  them  all  the  proceedings  of  the  con- 
vention, they  thought  it  their  duty  to  act  cautiously, 
and  restrained  their  desire  to  nject  our  wishes,  till 
they  had  more  full  information  on  the  subject.  He 
said  it  was  unnecessary  to  enter  into  the  various  re- 
ports of  alterations  said  to  be  made,  or  intended  by 
our  churches,  for  he  did  not  give  credit  to  commou 
reports,  which  are  often  circulated  without  founda- 
tion. Some  alterations  however,  it  appeared,  had 
been  made,  and  what  the  rest  were,  could  not  be 
told  until  the  whole  was  laid  before  them.  That 
some  alterations  were  necessarily  brought  about  by 
the  change  of  circumstances,  and  were  therefore  pro- 
per, he  allowed;  but  he  hoped  there  would  be  found 
none  which  rendered  our  church  substantially  dif- 
ferent from  theirs,  of  which  he  considered  it  as  a 
branch,  and  the  bishops  were  obliged  to  examine 
what  church  ours  was,  before,  from  their  source,  they 
established  an  episcopacy  over  a  people,  who  might 
perhaps  hold  tenets  opposite  to  theirs.  He  did  not 
know  or  believe  this  was  the  case  with  respect  to  us, 
but  it  became  them  to  inquire.  He  feared  some  of  our 
business  had  been  done  hastily.  He  showed  me  the 
answer  to  the  address,  which  he  said  had  been  sin- 
cerely felt  by  every  bishop  who  had  signed  it.  He 
seemed  very  desirous  of  removing  any  doubts  about 
their  firm  intentions  to  comply  with  our  wishes: 
showed  me  the  original  draft  of  the  answer  in  his 
hand  writing.  I  observed  there  were  no  alterations 
made  in  it,  and  among  nineteen  bishops,  who  were 
all  that  were  in  town  at  the  meeting  of  Parhament. 


406 

there  was  not  a  dissenting  voice.  He  hoped  so  unani- 
mous an  opinion,  must  evidence  beyond  a  doubt,  the 
great  desire  all  had  to  grant  our  request.  They  all 
from  the  bottom  of  their  hearts  wished  our  prosperi- 
ty, and  would  do  all  in  their  power  to  promote  it.  But 
before  they  had  the  necessary  information,  it  would 
be  imprudent  in  them  to  act.  He  said  there  would 
be  no  difficulties  with  government,  and  was  happy 
that  all  embarrassments,  with  respect  to  the  civil 
powers  of  the  United  States,  were  removed  by  the 
certificates  and  papers  transmitted.  He  had  spoke 
to  the  king,  on  the  receipt  of  the  address,  who  ex- 
pressed great  satisfaction  in  it,  and  was  ready  to  do 
what  was  required  of  him.  That  administration  would 
promote  the  law,  when  it  was  recommended  by  the 
bishops  as  proper.  They  therefore,  being  in  a  res- 
ponsible situation,  must  proceed  with  caution.  He 
desired  nothing  he  had  said,  should  be  thought  cal- 
culated to  throw  difficulties  in  the  way;  for  there 
really  was  no  disposition  of  that  kind  in  the  bishops, 
or  members  of  the  government.  He  hoped  our  con- 
vention at  the  next  meeting,  would  consider  the 
embarrassments  too  many  alterations  would  throw 
in  the  way  of  their  application  here,  and  if  any  of 
them  substantially  deviated  from  the  doctrines,  or 
worship  of  this  church,  it  would  frustrate  the  views 
of  our  churches,  by  putting  it  out  of  the  power  of  those 
here,  who  have  every  good  disposition  to  serve  us, 
to  forward  our  application.  He  wished  great  care 
might  be  taken,  of  the  character  of  those  sent  for 
consecration,  as  much  depended  on  this.  They  should, 


407 

however,  commit  themselves  to  our  discretion  in  this 
respect,  and  hoped  tliey  should  have  no  reason  to 
repent  it.  He  declined  answering  the  question  I 
was  desired  by  Dr.  White  to  put  to  him,  respecting 
the  validity  of  Scotch  consecrations,  having  first  ask- 
ed me  whether  the  question  came  from  the  conven- 
tion? 1  told  him  it  was  to  satisfy  private  inquiries, 
which  were  made  with  no  view  of  seeking  conse- 
cration from  that  source.*  I  find  we  can  have  no 
bishop,  until  we  let  the  prelates  here  see  what  church 
we  have  made.  I  think  it  would  be  prudent  in  our 
church,  to  put  off  any  material  alterations  until  we 
have  bishops  consecrated.  If  we  make  any  substan- 
tial alterations,  they  will  be  carped  at  by  those  who 
will  make  the  bishops  uneasy;  and  to  keep  peace  at 
home,  they  will  refuse  to  meddle  abroad,  notwith- 
standing their  strong  desire  to  do  what  we  wish. 
I  am,  gentlemen, 
With  much  esteem 
Your  very  obedient  servant, 
Richard  Peters. 

Rev.  Dr.  White,  Rev.  Br.  Smith,  Rev.  Mr.  Pro- 
voost,  Hon.  James  Duane,  Samuel  Powell,  Esq. 

P.  S.  Mr.  Adams  has  been  very  attentive  to  the 
business  of  an  address,  with  which  he  waited  on  the 

*  Notwithstanding  the  prudent  reserve  of  the  archbishop  at 
this  time,  he  is  said  to  have  given  his  influence  in  favour  of  the 
non  juring  bishops  about  three  years  afterwards;  when,  on  the 
decease  of  the  last  pretender,  they  began  to  pray  for  the  king  on 
the  throne,  and  some  of  them  came  up  to  London,  to  solicit  the 
repeal  of  the  penal  laws  made  against  them. 


408 

archbishop,  who  in  return  waited  on  him  with  the  an- 
swer traiiSinitted.  I  think  the  committee  should  re- 
turn him  their  thanks,  for  the  part  he  (Mr.  Adams) 
has  taken. 

Dont  pubhsh  the  bishop's  answer,  as  it  will  get 
over  here,  and  be  a  subject  of  news-paper  discussion. 

No.  18.  Page  167. 

^n  act  of  the  clergy  of  Massachusetts  and  JVew 
Hampshire. 

The  good  Providence  of  Almighty  God,  the  foun- 
tain of  all  goodness,  having  lately  blessed  the  pro- 
testant  episcopal  church  in  the  United  States  of  Ame- 
rica, by  supplying  it  with  a  complete  and  entire  minis- 
try, and  affording  to  many  of  her  communion  the 
benefit  of  the  labours,  advice  and  government  of  the 
successors  of  the  Apostles; 

We,  Presbyters  of  said  church  in  the  states  of 
Massachusetts  and  New  Hampshire,  deeply  impress- 
ed with  the  most  lively  gratitude  to  the  Supreme  Go- 
vernor of  the  universe,  for  his  goodness  in  this  res- 
pect, and  with  the  most  ardent  love  to  his  church, 
and  concern  for  the  interest  of  her  sons,  that  they 
may  enjoy  all  the  means  that  Christ,  the  great  shep- 
herd and  bishop  of  souls,  has  instituted  for  leading 
his  followers  into  the  ways  of  truth  and  holiness, 
and  preserving  his  church  in  the  unity  of  the  spirit 
and  the  bond  of  peace;  to  the  end  that  the  people 
committed  to  our  respective  charges  may  enjoy  the 
benefit  and  advantage  of  those  offices,  the  adminis- 
tration of  which  belongs  to  the  highest  order  of  the 


409 

ministry,  and  to  encourage  and  promote,  as  far  as  in 
us  lies,  a  union  of  the  whole  Episcopal  church  in 
these  states,  and  to  perfect  and  compact  this  mysti- 
cal hody  of  Christ,  do  hereby  nominate,  elect  and 
appoint  the  Rev.  Edward  Bass,  a  Presbyter  of  said 
church,  and  Rector  of  St.  Paul's,  in  Newburyport, 
to  be  our  bishop;  and  we  do  promise  and  engage  to 
receive  him  as  such,  when  canonically  consecrated, 
and  invested  with  the  apostolic  office  and  powers,  by 
the  right  reverend  the  bishops  hereafter  named,  and 
to  render  him  all  that  canonical  obedience  and  sub- 
mission, which,  by  the  laws  of  Christ  and  the  con- 
stitution of  our  church,  is  due  to  so  important  an 
office. 

And  we  now  address  the  right  reverend  the  bish- 
ops in  the  states  of  Connecticut,  New  York  and 
Pennsylvania,  praying  their  united  assistance  in  con- 
secrating our  said  brother,  and  canonically  investing 
him  with  the  apostolic  office  and  powei^s.  This  request 
we  are  induced  to  make,  from  a  long  acquaintance 
with  him,  and  from  a  perfect  knowledge  of  his  be- 
ing possessed  of  that  love  to  God  and  benevolence 
to  men,  that  piety,  learning  and  good  morals,  that 
prudence  and  discretion,  requisite  to  so  exalted  a  sta- 
tion, as  well  as  that  personal  respect  and  attachment 
of  the  conmiunion  at  large  in  these  states,  which 
will  make  him  a  valuable  acquisition  to  the  order, 
and,  we  trust,  a  rich  blessing  to  the  church. 

Done  at  a  meeting  of  the  Presbyters,  whose 
names  are  underwritten,  held  at  Salem,  in  the 
3  F 


410 

county  of  Essex,  and  commonwealth  of  Mas- 
sachusetts, the  fourth  day  of  June,  Anno  Sa- 
lutis,  1789. 
Samuel  Parker,  Rector  of  trinity  church,  Boston. 
T.  Fitch  Oliver,  Rector  of  St.  Michael's  church, 

Marblehead. 
John  Cousens  Ogden,  Rector  of  Queen's  chapel, 

Portsmouth,  New  Hampshire. 
William  Montague,  minister  of  Christ's  church,  Bos- 
ton. 
Tillotson   Brunson,    assistant  minister  of  Christ's 
church,  Boston. 

Resolves  on  the  foregoing. 

1st.  Resolved,  That  a  complete  order  of  bishops, 
derived  as  well  under  the  English  as  the  Scots  hne 
of  episcopacy,  doth  now  subsist  within  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  the  persons  of  the  right  Rev, 
WilHam  White,  D.  D.  bishop  of  the  protestant  epis- 
copal church  in  the  state  of  Pennsylvania;  the  right 
Rev.  Samuel  Provoost,  D.  D.  bishop  of  the  said 
church  in  the  state  of  New  York,  and  the  right  Rev. 
Samuel  Seabury,  D.  D.  bishop  of  the  said  church  in 
the  state  of  Connecticut. 

2d.  Resolved,  That  the  said  three  bishops  are 
fully  competent  to  every  proper  act  and  duty  of  the 
episcopal  office  and  character  in  these  United  States, 
as  well  in  respect  to  the  consecration  of  other  bish- 
ops, and  the  ordering  of  priests  and  deacons,  as  for 
the  government  of  the  church,  according  to  such 
rules,  canons  and  institutions,  as  now  are,  or  here- 


411 

after  may  be  duly  made  and  ordained  by  the  church 
in  that  case. 

3d.  Resolved,  That  in  christian  charity,  as  well 
as  of  duty,  necessity  and  expediency,  the  churches 
represented  in  this  convention  ought  to  contribute, 
in  every  manner  in  their  power,  towards  supplying 
the  wants,  and  granting  every  just  and  reasonable 
request  of  their  sister  churches  in  these  states;  and, 
therefore, 

4th.  Resolved,  That  the  right  Rev.  Dr.  White  and 
the  right  Rev.  Dr.  Provoost  be,  and  they  hereby  are, 
requested  to  join  with  the  right  Rev.  Dr.  Seabury, 
in  complying  with  the  prayer  of  the  clergy  of  the 
states  of  Massachusetts  and  New  Hampshire,  for  the 
consecration  of  the  Rev.  Edward  Bass,  bishop  elect 
of  the  churches  in  the  said  states;  but  that,  before 
the  said  bishops  comply  with  the  request  aforesaid, 
it  be  proposed  to  the  churches  in  the  Mew  England 
states  to  meet  the  churches  of  these  states,  with  the 
said  three  bishops,  in  an  adjourned  convention,  to 
settle  certain  articles  of  union  and  discipline  among 
all  the  churches,  previous  to  such  consecration. 

5th.  Resolved,  That  if  any  difficulty  or  delicacy, 
in  respect  to  the  archbishops  and  bishops  of  England, 
shall  remain  with  the  right  Rev.  Doctors  White  and 
Provoost,  or  either  of  them,  concerning  their  com- 
pliance with  the  above  request,  this  convention  will 
address  the  archbishops  and  bishops,  and  hope  there- 
by to  remove  the  difficulty.^' 


412 

No.  19.  p.  169. 

An  Address  to  the  Most  Reverend  the  Archbishops  of 
Canterbury  and  York. 

Most  Venerable  and  illustrious  Fathers  and  Prelates: 
We,  the  bishops,  clergy  and  laity  of  the  protest- 
ant  episcopal  church  in  the  states  of  New  York,  New 
Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia 
and  South  Carolina,  impressed  with  every  sentiment 
of  love  and  veneration,  beg  leave  to  embrace  this 
earliest  occasion,  in  general  convention,  to  offer  our 
wannest,  most  sincere  and  grateful  acknowledgments 
to  you,  and  (by  your  means)  to  all  the  venerable  bi- 
shops of  the  church  over  which  you  preside,  for  the 
manifold  instances  of  your  former  condescension  to 
us,  and  solicitude  for  our  spiritual  welfare.  But 
we  are  more  especially  called  to  express  our  thank- 
fulnessj  for  that  particular  act  of  your  fatherly  good- 
ness, whereby  we  derive,  under  you,  a  pure  episco- 
pacy and  succession  of  the  ancient  order  of  bishops, 
and  are  now  assembled  through  the  blessing  of  God, 
as  a  church  duly  constituted  and  organized,  with  the 
happy  prospect  before  us  of  a  future  full  and  undis- 
turbed exercise  of  our  holy  religion,  and  its  exten- 
sion to  the  utmost  bounds  of  this  continent,  under  an 
ecclesiastical  constitution,  and  a  form  of  worship, 
which  we  believe  to  be  truly  apostolical. 

The  growing  prospect  of  this  happy  diffusion  of 
Christianity,  and  the  assurance  we  can  give  you  that 
our  churches  are  spreadingand  flourishing  throughout 
these  United  {States,  we  know,  will  yield  you  more 


413 

solid  joy,  and  be  considered  as  a  more  ample  reward 
of  your  goodness  to  us,  than  all  the  praises  and  ex- 
pressions of  gratitude  which  tlie  tongues  of  men  can 
bestow. 

It  gives  us  pleasure  to  assure  you,  that,  during 
the  present  sitting  of  our  convention,  the  utmost  har- 
mony has  prevailed  through  all  our  delibrations,  that 
we  continue,  as  heretofore,  most  sincerely  attached 
to  the  faith  and  doctrine  of  the  church  of  England; 
and  that  not  a  wish  appears  to  prevail,  either  among 
our  clergy  or  lait} ,  of  ever  departing  from  that  church 
in  any  essential  article. 

The  business  of  most  material  consequence 
which  hath  come  before  us,  at  our  present  meeting, 
hath  been  an  application  from  our  sister  churches 
in  the  eastern  states,  expressing  their  earnest  desire 
of  ?  general  union  of  the  whole  episcopal  church  in 
the  United  States,  both  in  doctrine  and  disciphne; 
and,  as  a  primary  means  of  such  union,  praying  the 
assistance  of  our  bishops  in  the  consecration  of  a 
bishop  elect  for  the  states  of  Massachusetts  and  New 
Hampshire.  We  therefore  judge  it  necessary  to  ac- 
company this  address  with  the  papers,  which  have 
come  before  us  on  that  very  interesting  subject,  and 
of  the  proceedings  we  have  had  thereupon,  by  which 
you  will  be  enabled  to  judge  concerning  the  particu- 
lar delicacy  of  our  situation  and,  probably,  to  reheve 
us  from  any  difficulties  which  maybe  found  therein. 

The  application  from  the  church  in  the  states  of 
Massachusetts  and  New  Hampshire  is  in  the  follow- 
ing words. 


414 

[Here  follows  the  application  as  in  the  preceding 
number.] 

At  the  meeting  aforesaid. 
Voted,  That  the  Rev.  Samuel  Parker  be  author- 
ised and  empowered  to  transmit  copies  of  the  fore- 
going a(  t,  to  be  by  him  attested,  to  the  right  Rev. 
the  bishops  in  Connecticut,  New  York  and  Penn- 
sylvania; and  that  he  be  appointed  our  agent,  to  ap- 
pear at  any  convocation  to  be  holden  at  Pennsylva- 
nia or  New  York,  and  to  treat  upon  any  measures 
that  may  tend  to  promote  an  union  of  the  episcopal 
church  throughout  the  United  States  of  America,  or 
that  may  prove  advantageous  to  the  interest  of  the 
said  church.  Edward  Bass,  Chairman. 

A  true  copy. 
Jtttest.  Samuel  Parker. 

This  was  accompanied  with  a  letter  from  the 
Rev.  Samuel  Parker,  the  worthy  rector  of  Trinity 
church,  Boston,  to  the  right  Rev.  bishop  White,  dated 
June  21st,  1789,  of  which  the  following  is  an  ex- 
tract:— "  The  clergy  here  have  appointed  me  their 
agent,  to  appear  at  any  convocation  to  be  held  at 
New  York  or  Pennsylvania;  but  I  fear  the  situation 
of  my  family  and  parish  will  not  admit  of  my  being 
absent  so  long  as  a  journey  to  Philadelphia  would 
take.  When  I  gave  you  encouragement  that  I  should 
attend,  I  was  in  expectation  of  having  my  parish  sup- 
plied by  some  gentlemen  from  Nova  Scotia;  but  I  am 
now  informed,  they  will  not  be  here  till  some  time  in 
August.  Having,  therefore,  no  prospect  of  attending 
in  person  at  your  general  convention  next  month,  I 


415 

am  requested  to  transmit  you  an  attested  copy  ol'  an 
act  of  the  clergy  of  this  and  the  state  of  New  Hamp- 
shire, electing  the  Rev.  Edward  Bass  our  bishop, 
and  requesting  the  united  assistance  of  the  right  Rev. 
bishops  of  Pennsylvania,  Sew  York  and  Connecti- 
cut, to  invest  him  with  apostolic  powers.  This  act 
I  have  now^  the  honour  of  enclosing,  and  hope  it  will 
reach  you  before  the  meeting  of  your  general  con- 
vention in  July. 

"  The  clergy  of  this  state  are  very  desirous  of 
seeing  an  union  of  the  whole  episcopal  church  in 
the  United  States  take  place;  and  it  will  remain 
with  our  brethren  at  the  southward  to  say,  whether 
this  shall  be  the  case  or  not;  whether  we  shall  be 
an  united  or  divided  church.  Some  little  difference 
in  government  may  exist  in  different  states,  without 
affecting  the  essential  points  of  union  and  com- 
munion." 

In  the  like  spirit,  the  right  Rev.  Dr.  Seabury, 
bishop  of  the  church  of  Connecticut,  in  his  letter  to 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Smith,  dated  July  23d,  writes  on  the 

subject  of  union,  &.c.  as  followeth. "  The  wish 

of  my  heart,  and  the  wish  of  the  clergy  and  of  the 
church  people  of  this  state,  would  certainly  have 
carried  me  and  some  of  the  clergy  to  your  general 
convention,  had  we  conceived  we  could  have  at- 
tended with  propriety.  The  necessity  of  an  union 
of  all  the  churches,  and  the  disadvantages  of  our 
present  dis-union,  we  feel  and  lament  equally  with 
you;  and  I  agree  with  you,  that  there  may  be  a  strong 
and  efficacious  union  between  churches,  where  the 


416 

usages  are  different.  I  see  not  why  it  may  not  be 
so  in  the  present  case,  as  soon  as  you  have  removed 
those  obstructions,  which,  while  they  remain,  must 
prevent  all  possibility  of  uniting.  The  church  of  Con- 
necticut consists,  at  present,  of  nineteen  clergymen 
in  full  orders,  and  more  than  twenty  thousand  peo- 
ple, they  suppose,  as  respectable  as  the  church  in 
any  state  of  the  union.^' 

After  the  most  serious  deliberation  upon  this  im? 
portant  business,  and  cordially  joining  with  our  bre- 
thren of  the  eastern  or  New  England  churches  in  the 
desire  of  union,  the  following  resolves  were  unani- 
mously adopted  in  convention,  viz: 

[Here  follow  the  resolves,  as  given  in  the  pre- 
ceding number.] 

We  have  now,  most  venerable  Fathers,  submit- 
ted to  your  consideration  whatever  relates  to  this  im- 
portant business  of  union  among  all  our  churches  in 
these  United  States.  It  was  our  original  and  sin- 
cere intention  to  have  obtained  three  bishops,  at  least, 
immediately  consecrated  by  the  bishops  of  England, 
for  the  seven  states  comprehended  within  our  present 
union.  But  that  intention  being  frustrated  through 
unforeseen  circumstances,  we  could  not  wish  to  deny 
any  present  assistance,  which  may  be  found  in  our 
povver  to  give  to  any  of  our  sister  churches,  in  that 
way  which  may  be  most  acceptable  to  them,  and  in 
itself  legal  and  expedient. 

We  ardently  pray  for  the  continuance  of  your  fa- 
vour and  blessing,  and  that,  as  soon  as  the  urgency 
of  other  weighty  concerns  of  the  church  will  allow, 
we  may  be  favoured  with  that  fatherly  advice  and  di- 


417 

rection,  which  to  you  may  appear  most  for  the  glory 
of  God  and  the  prosperity  of  our  churches,  upon 
the  consideration  of  the  foregoing  documents  and  pa- 
pers. 

Done  in  convention,  this  8th  day  of  August, 
1789,  and  directed  to  be  signed  by  all  the  mem- 
bers, as  the  act  of  their  body,  and  by  the  presi- 
dent officially. 
[Signed  by  the  president  and  all  the  members.] 

No.  20.  p.  175. 

^9.  genentl  Constitution  of  the  Protestant  Ejnscopal 
church  in  the  United  States  of  Ameiica. 

Art.  1 .  There  shall  be  a  general  convention  of 
the  protestant  episcopal  church  in  the  United  States 
of  America,  on  the  first  Tuesday  of  August,  in  the 
year  of  our  Lord  1792,  and  on  the  first  Tuesday  of 
August  in  every  third  year  afterwards,  in  such  place 
as  shall  be  determined  by  the  convention;  and  special 
meetings  may  be  called  at  other  times,  in  the  manner 
hereafter  to  be  provided  for;  and  this  church,  in  a 
majority  of  the  states  which  shall  have  adopted  this 
constitution,  shall  be  represented,  before  they  shall 
proceed  to  business,  except  that  the  representation 
from  two  states  shall  be  sufficient  to  adjourn;  and  in 
all  business  of  the  convention,  freedom  of  debate 
shall  be  allowed. 

Art.  2.  The  church  in  each  state  shall  be  en- 
tifled  to  a  representation  of  both  the  clergy  and  the 
laity;  which  representation  shall  consist  of  one  or 
more  deputies,  not  exceeding  four  of  each  order, 

3g 


418 

chosen  by  the  convention  of  the  state;  and  in  all 
questions,  when  required  by  the  clerical  or  lay  repre- 
sentation from  any  state,  each  order  shall  have  one 
vote;  and  the  majority  of  suffrages  by  states  shall 
be  conclusive  in  each  order,  provided  such  majority 
comprehend  a  majority  of  the  states  represented  in 
that  order.  The  concun^ence  of  both  orders  shall  be 
necessary,  to  constitute  a  vote  of  the  convention.  If 
the  convention  of  any  state  should  neglect  or  decline 
to  appoint  clerical  deputies,  or  if  they  should  neglect 
or  decline  to  appoint  lay  deputies,  or  if  any  of  those 
of  either  order  appointed  should  neglect  to  attend, 
or  be  prevented  by  sickness  or  any  other  accident, 
such  state  shall  nevertheless  be  considered  as  duly 
represented  by  such  deputy  or  deputies  as  may  at- 
tend, whether  lay  or  clerical.  And  if,  through  the 
neglect  of  the  convention  of  any  of  the  churches 
which  shall  have  adopted,  or  may  hereafter  adopt  this 
constitution,  no  deputies,  eiiher  lay  or  clerical,  should 
attend  at  any  general  convention,  the  church  in  such 
State  shall  nevertheless  be  bound  by  the  acts  of  such 
convention. 

Art.  3.  The  bishops  of  this  church,  when  there 
tshall  be  three  or  more,  shall,  whenever  general  con- 
ventions are  held,  form  a  house  of  revision,  and  when 
any  proposed  act  shall  have  passed  in  the  genei'al 
convention,  the  same  shall  be  transmitted  to  the  house 
of  revision,  for  their  concurrence.  And  if  the  same 
shall  be  sent  back  to  the  convention,  with  the  nega- 
tive or  non-concurrence  of  the  house  of  revision,  it 
shall  be  again  considered  in  the  general  convention,. 


419 

and  if  the  convention  shall  adliere  to  the  said  act,  by 
a  majority  of  three-fifths  of  their  body,  it  shall  be- 
conie  a  law  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  notwithstand- 
ing the  non-concurrence  of  the  house  of  revision; 
and  all  acts  of  the  convention  shall  be  authenticated 
by  both  houses.  And  in  all  cases,  the  house  of  bish- 
ops shall  signify  to  the  convention  their  approbation 
or  disapprobation,  the  latter  with  their  reasons  in 
writing,  within  two  days  after  the  proposed  act  shall 
have  been  reported  to  them  for  concurrence,  and  in 
failure  thereof  it  shall  have  the  opeiation  of  a  law. 
But  until  there  shall  be  three  or  more  bishops,  as 
aforesaid,  any  bishop  attending  a  general  convention 
shall  be  a  member  ex  officio,  and  shall  vote  with  the 
clerical  deputies  of  the  state  to  which  he  belongs. 
And  a  bishop  shall  then  preside. 

Art.  4.  The  bishop  or  bishops  in  every  state  shall 
be  chosen  agreeably  to  such  rules,  as  shall  be  fixed 
by  the  convention  of  that  state.  And  every  bishop  of 
this  church  shall  confine  the  exercise  of  his  episco- 
pal office  to  his  proper  diocess  or  district,  unless  re- 
quested to  ordain,  or  confirm,  or  perform  any  other 
act  of  the  episcopal  office,  by  any  church  destitute 
of  a  bishop. 

Art.  5.  A  protestant  episcopal  church  in  any  of 
the  United  States,  not  now  represented,  may,  at  any 
time  hereafter,  be  admitted,  on  acceeding  to  this  con- 
stitution. 

Art.  6.  In  every  state,  the  mode  of  trying  cler- 
gymen shall  be  instituted  by  the  convention  of  the 
ehurch  therein.     At  every  trial  of  a  bishop,  there 


420 

shall  be  one  or  more  of  the  episcopal  order  present; 
and  none  but  a  bishop  shall  pronounce  sentence  of 
deposition  or  degradation  from  the  ministry  on  any 
clergyman,  whether  bishop,  or  presbyter,  or  deacon. 

Art.  7.  No  person  shall  be  admitted  to  holy  or- 
ders, until  he  shall  have  been  examined  by  the  bish- 
op, and  by  two  presbyters,  and  shall  have  exhibited 
such  testimonials  and  other  requisites,  as  the  canons, 
in  that  case  provided,  may  direct.  Nor  shall  any  per- 
son be  ordained,  until  he  shall  have  subscribed  the 
following  declaration:  "I  do  believe  the  holy  scrip- 
tures of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  to  be  the  word 
of  God,  and  to  contain  all  things  necessary  to  salva- 
tion: And  I  do  solemnly  engage  to  conform  to  the 
doctrines  and  worship  of  the  protestant  episcopal 
church  in  these  United  States.^^  No  person  ordained 
by  a  foreign  bishop  shall  be  permitted  to  officiate  as 
a  minister  of  this  church,  until  he  shall  have  com- 
phed  with  the  canon  or  canons  in  that  case  provided, 
and  have  also  subscribed  the  aforesaid  declaration. 

Art.  8.  A  book  of  common  prayer,  administra- 
tion of  the  sacraments,  and  other  rites  and  ceremo- 
nies of  the  church,  articles  of  religion,  and  a  form 
and  manner  of  making,  ordaining  and  consecrating 
bishops,  priests  and  deacons,  when  established  by 
this  or  a  future  general  convention,  shall  be  used  in 
the  protestant  episcopal  church  in  these  states,  which 
shall  have  adopted  this  constitution. 

Art.  9.  This  constitution  shall  be  unalterable, 
unless  in  general  convention,  by  the  church  in  a  ma- 
jority of  the  states,  which  may  have  adopted  the 


421 

same;  and  all  alterations  shall  be  first  proposed  in 
one  ceneral  convention,  and  made  known  to  the  se- 
veral  state  conventions,  before  they  shall  be  finally 
agreed  to,  or  ratified  in  the  ensuing  general  conven- 
tion. 

AUenations  in  the  subsequent  sessimi. 

"  The  committee  reported,  tiiat  they  have  had  a 
full,  free  and  friendly  conference  with  the  deputies 
of  the  said  churches,  who,  on  behalf  of  the  church 
in  their  several  states,  and  by  virtue  of  sufficient  au- 
thority from  them,  have  signified,  that  they  do  not 
object  to  the  constitution,  which  was  approved  at  the 
former  session  of  this  convention,  if  the  third  article 
of  that  constitution  may  be  so  modified,  as  to  declare 
explicitly  the  right  6f  the  bishops,  when  sitting  in  a 
separate  house,  to  originate  and  propose  acts  for  the 
concurrence  of  the  other  house  of  convention;  and 
to  negative  such  acts  proposed  by  the  other  house,  as 
they  may  disapprove. 

"  Your  committee,  cbnceiving  this  alteration  to 
be  desirable  in  itself,  as  having  a  tendency  to  give 
greater  stability  to  the  constitution,  without  diminish- 
ing any  security  that  is  now^  possessed  by  the  clergy 
or  laity;  and  being  sincerely  ftnpressed  with  the  im- 
portance of  an  union  to  the  future  prosperity  of  the 
church,  do  therefore  recommend  to  the  convention 
a  compliance  with  the  wishes  of  their  brethren,  and 
that  the  third  article  of  the  constitution  may  be  al- 
tered accordingly.  Upon  such  alteration  being  made, 
it  is  declared  by  the  deputies  from  the  churches  in 
the  eastern  states,  that  they  will  subscribe  the  con- 


422 

stitution,  and  become  members  of  this  general  con- 
vention/* 

Upon  special  motion,  the  above  report  was  read 
a  second  time;  whereupon  the  following  resolution 
was  proposed,  viz: — 

Resolved,  That  this  convention  do  adopt  tliat  part 
of  the  report  of  the  committee,  which  proposes  to 
modify  the  third  article  of  the  constitution,  so  as  to 
declare  explicitly  "  the  right  of  the  bishops,  when 
sitting  in  a  separate  house,  to  originate  and  propose 
acts  for  the  concurrence  of  the  other  house  of  con- 
vention; and  to  negative  such  acts  proposed  by  the 
other  house,  as  they  may  disapprove;  provided  they 
are  not  adhered  to  by  four-fifths  of  the  other  house." 

After  some  debate,  the  resolution,  with  the  pro- 
viso annexed,  was  agreed  upon,  and  the  third  arti- 
cle was  accordingly  modified  in  the  manner  follow- 
ing, viz: — 

Art.  3d.  The  bishops  of  this  churchy  when  there 
shall  he  three  or  more,  shall j  ivhenever  general  conven- 
tions are  held,  form  a  separate  house,  tvitn  a  nght  to 
originate  and  propose  acts  for  the  concurrence  of  the 
house  of  deputies,  composed  of  clergy  and  laity;  and 
when  any  proposed  acP  shall  have  passed  the  house 
of  deputies,  the  same  shall  be  transmitted  to  tlie  house 
of  bishops,  ivho  shall  have  a  negative  thereupon,  un- 
less adiiered  to  by  four-fifths  of  the  other  Jiouse;  and 
all  acts  of  the  convention  shall  be  authenticated  by 
both  houses.  And,  in  all  cases,  the  house  of  bishops 
shall  signify  to  the  convention  their  approbation  or 
disapprobation,  the  latter,  imih  their  reasons  in  w^i- 


423 

hig,  imth'm  three  days  after  the  proposed  act  sludl  have 
been  reported  to  them  for  concurrence;  and  in  failure 
thereof  it  sliall  have  tlie  operation  of  a  law.  But  until 
iJiere  shall  be  three  or  more  bishops,  as  aforesaid,  any 
bishop  attending  a  general  convention  sliall  be  a  mem- 
6e?%  ex  officio,  and  shall  vote  with  the  clerical  deputies 
of  the  state  to  which  he  belongs;  and  a  bishop  shall 
then  preside. 

Acceptance  by  bishop  Seabiiry,  and  the  presby- 
ters from  New  England. 

October  2d,  1789. 
We  do  hereby  agree  to  the  constitution  of  the 

church,  as  modified  this  day  in  convention. 

Samuel  Seabury,  D.  D.  bishop  of  the  episcopal 
church  in  Connecticut. 

Abraham  Jarvis,  A.  M.  rector  of) 

Chr  St  church,  Middletown,       I  State  of 

Bela  Hubbard,  A.M.  rector  off      Connecticut. 
Trinity  church,  New  Haven.     I 

Samuel  Parker,  D.  D.  rector  of  Trinity  church,  Bos- 
ton, and  clerical  deputy  for  Massachusetts  and  New 
Hampshire. 

Letters  of  consecration  of  bishop  Seabury. 
IN  DEI  NOMINE.     Amen. 
Omnibus  ubique  Catholicis  per  Presentes  pafeat, 

Nos,  Robertum  Kilgour,  miseratione  divina,  Epis- 
copum  Aberdonien — Arthurum  Petrie,  Episcopum 
Rossen  et  Moravien — et  Joannem  Skinner,  Episco- 
pum Coadjutorem;  Mysteria  Sacra  Domini  nostri 


424 

Jesu  Christi  in  Oratorio  supradicti  Joannis  Skinner 
apud  Aberdoniam  celebrantes,  Divini  Numinis  Pre- 
sidio fretos  (presentibus  tarn  e  Clero,  quam  e  Populo 
testibiis  idoneis)  Samuelem  Seabury,  Doctorem  Di- 
vinitatis,  sacro  Presbyteratus  ordine  jam  decoratum, 
ac  nobis  prse  Vitag  integritate,  Morum  probitate  et 
Orthodoxia,  commendatum,  et  ad  docendum  et  re- 
gendum  aptum  et  idoneum,  ad  sacrum  et  sublimem 
Episcopatus  Ordinem  promovisse,  et  rite  ac  canonice, 
secundum  Morem  et  Ritus  Ecclesise  Scoticanag,  con- 
secrasse.  Die  Novembris  decimo  quarto,  Anno  Mrae 
Christlanse  Millesimo  Septingentesimo  Octagesimo 

Quarto. 

In  cujus  Rei  Testimonium,   Instrumento  huic 
(chirographis  nostris  prius,  munito)  Sigilla  nos- 
tra apponi  mandavimus. 
Robertus  Kilgour,  Episcopus,  et  Primus.  (L.  S.) 
Arthurus  Petrie,  Episcopus.  (L.  S.) 

Joannes  Skinner,  Episcopus.  (L.  S.) 

No.  21.  p.  214 
A  letter  from  the  Rev.  Dr.  Coke,  and  the  answer. 

Right  Rev.  Sir, 

Permit  me  to  intrude  a  little  on  your  time  upon 
a  subject  of  great  importance. 

You,  1  believe,  are  conscious  that  I  was  brought 
up  in  the  church  of  England,  and  have  been  ordain- 
ed a  presbyter  of  that  church.  For  many  years  I  was 
prejudiced,  even  I  think  to  bigotry  in  favour  of  it:  but 
through  a  variety  of  causes  or  incidents,  to  mention 
which  would  be  tedious  and  useless,  my  mind  was  ex- 


425 

ceedingly  biased  on  the  other  side  of  the  question.  In 
consequence  of  this,  1  am  not  sure  but  I  went  iartiier 
in  the  separation  of  our  church  in  America,  tlian  Mr. 
Wesley,  from  whom  1  had  received  my  commission, 
did  intend.  He  did  indeed  solemnly  invest  me,  as 
far  as  he  had  a  right  so  to  do,  with  Episcopal  au- 
thority, but  did  not  intend,  I  think,  that  an  entire 
separation  should  take  place.  He,  being  pressed  by 
our  friends  on  this  side  of  the  water  for  ministers  to 
administer  the  sacraments  to  them,  (there  being  very 
few  clergy  of  the  church  of  England  then  in  the 
states,)  went  farther,  I  am  sure,  than  he  would 
have  gone,  if  he  had  foreseen  some  events  which  fol- 
lowed. And  this  I  am  certain  of — that  he  is  now 
sorry  for  the  separation. 

But  what  can  be  done  for  a  re-union,  which  I 
much  wish  for;  and  to  accomplish  which  Mr.  Wes- 
ley, I  have  no  doubt,  would  use  his  influence  to  the 
utmost.'^  The  affection  of  a  very  considerable  number 
of  the  preachers  and  most  of  the  people,  is  very  strong 
towards  him,  notwithstanding  the  excessive  ill  usage 
he  received  from  a  few.  My  interest  also  is  not 
small;  and  both  his  and  mine  would  readily  and  to 
the  utmost  be  used  to  accomplish  that  (to  us)  very 
desirable  object;  if  a  readiness  were  shown  by  the 
bishops  of  the  protestant  episcopal  church  to  re- 
unite. 

It  is  even  to  your  church  an  object  of  great  im- 
portance. We  have  now  above  60,000  adults  in 
our  society  in  these  states,  and  about  250  travelling 
ministers  and  preachers;  besides  a  great  number  of 

3r 


426 

local  preachers,  very  far  exceeding  the  number  of 
travelling  preachers;  and  some  of  those  local  preach- 
ers are  men  of  very  considerable  abilities.  But  if 
we  nmnber  the  methodists  as  most  people  number 
the  members  of  their  church,  viz.  by  the  families 
which  constantly  attend  the  divine  ordinances  in  their 
places  of  worsliip,  they  will  make  a  larger  body  than 
you  probably  conceive.  The  society,  I  believe,  may 
be  safely  multiplied  by  five  on  an  average  to  give  us 
our  slated  congregations;  which  will  then  amount  to 
300,000.  And  if  the  calculation  which,  I  think, 
some  eminent  writers  have  made,  be  just,  that  three 
fifths  of  mankind  are  im-adalt  (if  1  may  use  the  ex- 
pression) at  any  given  period,  it  will  follow  that  all 
the  families,  the  adults  of  which  form  our  congrega- 
tions in  these  states,  amount  to  750,000.  About  one 
fifth  of  these  are  blacks. 

The  work  now  extends  in  length  from  Boston 
to  the  south  of  Georgia;  and  in  breadth  from  the  At- 
lantic to  lake  Champlain,  Vermont,  Albany,  Red- 
stone, Holstein,  Kentucky,  Cumberland,  &c. 

But  there  are  many  hindrances  in  the  way.  Can 
they  be  removed.'' 

1.  Our  ordained  Ministers  will  not,  ought  not,  to 
give  up  their  right  of  administering  the  sacraments. 
I  don't  think  that  the  generality  of  them,  perhaps 
none  of  them,  would  refuse  to  submit  to  a  re- ordina- 
tion, if  other  hindrances  were  removed  out  of  the  way. 
I  must  here  observe  that  between  60  and  70  only  out 
of  the  two  hundred  and  fifty  have  been  ordained 


427 

presbyters,  and  about  GO  deacons  (only).  The  pres- 
byters are  the  choicest  ol'the  whole. 

2.  The  other  preachers  would  hardly  submit  to 
a  re-union,  ii"  the  possibility  of  their  rising  up  to  or- 
dination depended  on  the  present  bishops  in  Ameri- 
ca. Because  though  they  are  all  I  think  I  may  say, 
zealous,  pious  and  very  useful  men,  yet  they  are  not 
acquainted  with  the  learned  languages.  Besides, 
they  would  argue, — If  the  present  bishops  would 
wave  the  article  of  the  learned  languages,  yet  tlieir 
successors  might  not. 

My  desire  of  a  re-union  is  so  sincere  and  earnest 
that  these  difficulties  almost  make  me  tremble:  and 
yet  something  must  be  done  before  the  death  of  Mr. 
Wesley,  otherwise  I  shall  despair  of  success :  for  though 
my  influence  among  the  methodists  in  these  states  as 
well  as  in  Europe  is,  I  doubt  not,  increasing,  yet  Mr. 
Asbury,  whose  influence  is  very  capital,  will  not 
easily  comply:  nay,  I  know  he  will  be  exceedingly 
averse  to  it. 

In  Europe,  where  some  steps  had  been  taken, 
tending  to  a  separation,  all  is  at  an  end.  Mr.  Wes- 
ley is  a  determined  enemy  of  it,  and  I  have  lately 
borne  an  open  and  successful  testimony  against  it. 

Shall  I  be  favoured  with  a  private  interview  with 
you  in  Philadelphia.''  I  shall  be  there,  God  willing, 
on  Tuesday,  the  17th.  of  May.  If  this  be  agreeable, 
I'll  beg  of  you  just  to  signify  it  in  a  note  directed  to 
me,  at  Mr.  Jacob  Baker's,  merchant.  Market  street, 
Philadelphia:  or,  if  you  please,  by  a  few  lines  sent 
me  by  the  return  of  the  post  at  Philip  Rogers's,  Esq. 


428 

in  Baltimore,  from  yourself  or  Dr.  Magaw,  and  I 
will  wait  upon  you  with  my  friend  Dr.  Magaw.  We 
can  then  enlarge  on  these  subjects. 

I  am  conscious  of  it,  that  secrecy  is  of  great  im- 
portance in  the  present  state  of  the  business,  till  the 
minds  of  you,  your  brother  bishops,  and  Mr.  Wes- 
ley, be  circumstantially  known.  [  must  therefore  beg 
that  these  things  be  confined  to  yourself  and  Dr. 
Magaw,  till  I  have  the  honour  of  seeing  you. 

Thus,  you  see,  I  have  made  a  bold  venture  on 
your  honour  and  candour,  and  have  opened  my  whole 
heart  to  you  on  the  subject  as  far  as  the  extent  of  a 
small  letter  will  allow  me.  If  you  put  equal  confi- 
dence in  me,  you  will  find  me  candid  and  faithful. 

I  have,  notwithstanding,  been  guilty  of  inadver- 
tencies. Veiy  lately  I  found  myself  obliged  (for  the 
pacifying  of  my  conscience)  to  write  a  penitential 
letter  to  the  Rev.  ISIr.  Jarratt,  which  gave  him  great 
satisfaction:  and  for  the  same  reason  I  must  write 
another  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Pettigrew.  When  I  was 
last  in  America,  I  prepared  and  corrected  a  great 
variety  of  things  for  our  magazines,  indeed  almost 
every  thing  that  was  printed,  except  some  loose  hints 
which  I  had  taken  of  one  of  my  journeys,  and  which 
I  left  in  my  hurry  with  Mr.  Asbury,  without  any  cor- 
rection, intreating  that  no  part  of  them  might  be  prin- 
ted which  would  be  improper  or  offensive.  But 
through  great  inadvertency  (I  suppose)  he  suffered 
some  reflections  on  the  characters  of  the  two  above- 
mentioned  gentlemen  to  be  inserted  in  the  magazine, 
for  which  I  am  very  sorry:  and  probably  shall  not 


429 

rest  till  I  have  made  my  acknowledgment  more  pub- 
lic; though  Mr.  Jarratt  docs  not  desire  it. 

I  am  not  sure  whether  I  have  not  also  ofTended 
you,  Sir,  by  accepting  of  one  of  the  offers  made  me 
by  you  and  Dr.  Magavv  of  the  use  of  your  churches 
about  six  years  ago  on  my  first  visit  to  Philadelphia, 
without  informing  you  of  our  plan  of  separation  from 
the  church  of  England.  If  I  did  offend,  (as  I  doubt 
I  did,  especially  fiom  what  you  said  on  the  subject 
to  Mr.  Richard  Dellam,  of  Abington,)  I  sincerely  beg 
yours  and  Dr.  Magaw's  pardon.  I'll  endeavour  to 
amend.     But,  alas!  I  am  a  frail,  weak  creature. 

I  will  intrude  no  longer  at  present.  One  thing 
only  1  will  claim  from  your  candor — that  if  you  have 
no  thoughts  of  improving  this  proposal,  you  will  burn 
this  letter,  and  take  no  more  notice  of  it  (for  it  would 
be  a  pity  to  hare  us  entirely  alienated  from  each 
other,  if  we  cannot  unite  in  the  manner  my  ardent 
W'ishes  desire.)  But  if  you  will  further  negotiate  the 
business,  I  will  explain  my  mind  still  more  fully  to 
you  on  the  probabilities  of  success. 

In  the  mean  time  permit  me,  with  great  respect, 
to  subscribe  myself. 
Right  Rev.  sir, 

Your  very  humble  servant  in  Christ, 
Thomas  Coke. 
Richmond,  dpril  S4,  1791. 
The  Right  Rev.  Father  in  God,  Bishop  White. 

You  must  excuse  interlineations,  &c.  as  I  am 
just  going  into  the  country,  and  have  no  time  to  trans- 
cribe. 


430 

Answer. 
Rev.  Sir, 

My  friend,  Dr.  Magaw,  has  this  day  put  into  my 
hands,  your  letter  of  the  24th  of  April,  which,  I  trust, 
I  received  with  a  sense  of  the  importance  of  the  sub- 
ject and  of  the  answer  1  am  to  give  to  God,  for  the 
improvement  of  every  opportunity  of  building  up  his 
church.  Accordingly,  I  cannot  but  make  choice 
of  the  earliest  of  the  two  ways  you  point  out  to  in- 
form you,  that  1  shall  be  very  happy  in  the  opportu- 
nity of  conversing  w  ith  you  at  the  time  proposed. 

You  mention  two  difficulties  in  the  way  of  the 
proposed  union.  And  there  are  further  difficulties 
which  suggest  themselves  to  my  mind.  But  I  can 
say  of  the  one  and  of  the  other,  that  I  do  not  think 
them  insuperable,  provided  there  be  a  conciliatory 
disposition  on  both  sides. — So  far  as  I  am  concern- 
ed, I  think  that  such  a  disposition  exists. 

It  has  not  been  my  temper.  Sir,  to  despond  in 
regard  to  the  extension  of  Christianity  in  this  new' 
world:  And  in  addition  to  the  promises  of  the  great 
head  of  the  church,  I  have  always  imagined  that  I 
perceived  the  train  of  second  causes  so  laid  by  the 
good  Providence  of  God,  as  to  be  promoting  what 
we  believe  to  be  his  will  in  this  repect.  On  the  other 
hand,  1  feel  the  weight  of  most  powerful  discour- 
agements, in  the  increasing  number  of  the  avowed 
patrons  of  inttdelity,  and  of  others,  who  pretend  to 
confess  the  divine  authority  of  our  holy  religion  while 
they  endeavour  to  strip  it  of  its  characteristic  doc- 
trines, in  this  situation,  it  is  rather  to  be  expected, 
that  distinct  churches,  agreeing  in  fundamentals, 


431 

sliould  make  mutual  sacrifices  for  a  union,  than  that 
any  church  should  divide  into  two  bodies,  without  a 
difference  being  even  alleged  to  exist,  in  any  leading 
point.  For  the  preventing  of  this,  the  measures  which 
you  may  propose  cannot  Tail  of  success,  unless  there 
be  on  one  side,  or  on  both,  a  most  lamentable  defi- 
ciency of  christian  temper. 

I  remember  the  conversation  you  allude  to  with 
Mr.  Dellam:  I  hope  I  did  not  express  myself  unchari- 
tably, or  even  indelicately.  As  to  personal  offence  to- 
wards me,  it  is  out  of  the  question:  for  I  had  not  at 
that  time  any  connection  with  St.  Paul's  church — 
But  this,  as  well  as  the  other  parts  of  your  letter  may 
be  discoursed  of  at  the  proposed  interview.  There- 
fore, with  assurance  of  the  desired  secrecy,  and  with 
requesting  you  to  accept  a  like  promise  of  candour 
to  that  which  I  credit  from  you,  I  conclude  myself  at 
present — 

Your  Brother  in  Christ  and  very 
Humble  servant, 

W.  W* 

*  The  writer  of  the  above  answer  kept  silence  on  the  sub- 
ject of  it,  except  in  the  permitted  communication  to  the  bishops, 
until  the  summer  of  1804:  when  he  received,  in  one  day,  two 
letters  from  the  eastern  shore  of  Maryland.  One  of  them,  was 
from  the  Rev.  Simon  Wilmer  of  the  episcopal  church,  and  the 
other  was  from  the  Rev.  Mr.  Mc  Klaskey  of  the  methodist  com- 
munion. In  a  conversation  between  tl\ese  two  gentlemen,  the 
former  had  aflirmed  the  fact  of  Dr.  Coke's  application,  which  was 
disbelieved  by  the  other.  This  produced  thoir  respective  let- 
ters, which  were  answered  by  a  statement  of  the  fact.  The  mat- 
ter being  afterwards  variously  reported,  a  copy  of  the  letter,  was 


432 

No.  22.  Page,  218. 
Testi7nonial  of  tJie  Rev.  Charles  Pettigrew. 
We  the  subscribers  having  met  iii  convention,  at 
Tarborough,  in  North  CaroHna,  on  the  28th  day  of 
May,  1794,  for  the  purpose  of  considering  the  de- 
clining situation  of  the  protestant  episcopal  church 
in  this  state,  and  having  chosen  the  Rev.  Charles 
Pettigrew  as  a  person  fit  to  be  our  bishop,  and  wor- 
thy to  be  redommended  for  consecration  to  that  holy 
office — but  being  sensible  that  the  great  distance  at 
which  the  laity  as  well  as  the  clergy  of  this  state 
live  from  each  other  deprives  us  of  sufficient  person- 
al acquaintance  with  one  another  to  subscribe  a  tes- 
timonial in  the  words  prescribed  by  the  general  con- 
vention of  the  protestant  Episcopal  church,  have 
thought  it  necessary  and  proper  to  make  some  devi- 
ation therefrom,  which  we  presume  to  hope  will  be 
no  obstacle  to  our  laudable  pursuit.  We  therefore 
do  hereby  recommend  to  be  consecrated  to  the  office 
of  a  bishop,  the  said  Reverend  Charles  Pettigrew, 
whom,  from  his  morality,  religious  principles,  piety 
of  life,  from  his  general  reputation  in  a  clerical  cha- 
racter, from  the  personal  knowledge  we  have  of  him, 
and  from  his  sufficiency  in  good  learning,  and  sound- 
ness in  the  faith,  we  are  induced  to  believe 
worthy  of  being  consecrated  to  that  important  office. 
We  hereby  promise  and  engage  to  receive  him  as 
such  when  canonically  consecrated  and  invested 
therewith,  and  to  render  that  canonical  obedience 

after  some  lapse  of  time,  delivered  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Kemp  of 
Maryland,  and  at  last  became  published  in  a  controversy  laised 
in  the  diocess.  W.  W. 


433 

which  we  believe  to  be  necessary  to  the  due  and  pro- 
per discharge  of  so  important  a  trust  in  tiie  church 
of  Christ.  And  we  now  address  the  Right  Reverend 
the  bishops  in  the  several  United  States,  praying 
their  united  assistance  in  consecrating  this  our  said 
brother  and  canonically  investing  him  with  the  apos- 
tolic office  and  powers.  In  testimony  whereol,  we 
hereunto  subscribe  our  names,  the  day  and  year 
above  written.  ' 

J.  Leigh,  M.  D.  N.  Blount, 

J.  Guion,  M.  D.  J.  L.  Wilson, 

R.  Whyte,  )  Lawyers  ^  ^"'^">^' 

B.  Woods,  \  sawyers.  g  ^3^,,^^ 

W.  Clements,  R.  J.  Miller, 

L.  Desseaux,  •  (of  the  clergy) 

W.  Grimes, 
R.  Godly,         (of  the  laity.) 

No.  23  Page.  219. 

Circular  of  a  Committee  in  S.  Carolina. 
Gentlemen,  * 

Impressed  with  a  fervent  desire  of  being  bene- 
ficial to  the  state  in  general,  and  of  supporting  religion 
among  us,  we  the  subscribers,  being  a  select  commit- 
tee from  several  of  the  united  episcopal  churches  in 
this  state,  who  met  on  the  16th  of  last  October,  are 

*In  the  document,  some  of  the  words  are  in  larger  charac- 
ters than  the  rest.  The  same  words  are  here  given  in  italics  witK 
the  view  of  making  a  faithful  representation  of  the  instrument: 
the  framers  of  which  were  careful  to  give  this  explanation  of 
their  design;  however  beneath  them  an  attention  to  the  laws  of 
grammar. 

3  I 


434 

directed  to  address  you.  The  subject  is  an  impor- 
tant one,  and  requires  consideration.  From  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  two  last  general  conventions,  held  at 
Philadelphia  and  New  York,  it  has  with  regret  beea 
found  by  the  representatives  of  this  state,  that  the 
intention  of  all  the  eastern  states  was  to  form  two 
separate  houses  of  discussion  on  the  forms  and  pro- 
pagation of  religion.  To  this  all  consented,  not  fore- 
seeing any  ill  effects  immediately  arising  from  it. 
The  one  composed  of  bishops  solely,  the  other  of 
clergy  and  laity  conjointly;  and  that  a  full  consent 
of  one  house,  together  with  two  thirds  of  the  other, 
must  be  obtained,  to  effectually  carry  any  proposition 
into  effect.  But  in  these  two  last  meetings  as  above, 
many  proposed,  that  the  house  of  bishops  should  have 
"  an  absolute  negative"  over  the  clergy  and  laity.  To 
this  Virginia  and  South  Carolina  were  firmly  oppo- 
sed; theeastern  states  as  firmly  supported.  The  next 
general  convention  will  beheld  at  Philadelphia,  where 
we  wish  to  be  represented,  but  upon  the  same  deter- 
mination, if  approved  by  the  vestries  of  our  associated 
churches  in  this  state,  of  opposition  to  the  absolute  ne- 
gative; which,  more  than  probably,  will  cause  a  seces- 
sion of  this  state  and  Virginia  from  the  general  associ- 
ation. Considering  the  situation  we  shall  then  be  left 
in,  we  are  desirous,  by  the  blessing  of  Almighty  God 
directing  us  in  our  choice,  to  select  one  from  the  cler- 
gy of  this  state,  to  be  sent  forward  immediately  to  the 
northward  and  to  obtain  authority  solely  to  ordain  mi- 
nisters for  tliis  state,  as  well  as  to  renew  that  ordinance 


435 

which  has  too  long  laid  dormant  in  our  country, 
cmfmnation.  We  have  thought  proper,  therefore, 
to  request  your  opinion  on  the  subject,  as  we  con- 
ceive from  many  of  our  rising  young  men  having  de- 
voted themselves  to  the  study  of  divinity,  and  by 
selecting  some  worthy  and  good  man  resident  in  a 
Parish,  and  desirous  of  taking  the  oifice  of  the  mi- 
nistry upon  him,  and  having  him  ordained,  we  shall 
be  better  enabled  to  have  our  churches  provided 
than  we  are  at  present  by  the  clergy  which  we  have 
of  late  experienced  from  Europe,  or  from  our  nor- 
thern states;  and  as  this  country  will  then  be  their 
native  country,  and  from  being  accustomed  to  reside 
in  it,  the  complaints  of  its  sickliness,  which  have 
been  the  great  arguments  of  desertion  from  their  pa- 
rishes, will  in  some  measure,  if  not  totally,  lose  their 
effect:  and  as,  in  that  case,  the  minister  may  have 
some  property  of  his  own,  the  subscription  of  parish- 
es where  small,  will  in  this  manner  be  rendered  suffi- 
ciently ample;  as  well  as  the  doctrines  propagated 
consistent  with  the  situation  the  Almighty  has  been 
pleased  to  allot  us.  We  beg  leave  farther  to  men- 
tion, not  with  an  intention  to  bias  your  opinion,  but 
as  a  reason  for  our  present  application,  that  Virginia 
has  pursued  the  steps  marked  out,  and  with  the  bles- 
sing of  Heaven  upon  their  endeavours  and  under  the 
direction  and  guardianship  of  bishop  Madison* have 
obtained  sixty  good  and  reputable  divines,  men,  if 
but  of  moderate  learning,  of  sound  and  good  morals, 

*  "Who  showed  himself  very  indignant  at  tlie  intended  com- 
pliment. 


436 

who  have  undertaken  the  ministry,  not  from  a  desire 
of  gain,  but  from  a  desire  of  doing  good,  and  spread- 
ing the  effects  of  piety,  brotherly  love,  and  charity  in 
the  several  parishes  where  they  reside.  From  these 
motives,  and  from  the  distressed  situation  we  shall 
be  in,  if  a  secession  takes  place  before  we  are  pro- 
vided with  one  to  confirm  and  ordain,  for  then  we 
must  either  take  what  they  are  pleased  to  send,  or 
humbly  intreat  their  favours  to  ordain  for  us,  which 
might  be  refused  after  our  secession,  we  have  pre- 
sumed to  address  you,  hoping  when  these  important 
concerns  shall  come  before  you,  you  will  not  refuse 
to  lend  us  your  aid,  both  in  consulting  in  the  most 
public  manner  the  sentiments  of  our  brethren  at 
large,  and  informing  us  of  them  by  a  representative 
or  representatives  at  our  next  state  convention,  to  be 
held  at  St.  Michaels  church,  on  the  10th  day  of  next 
February,  for  the  express  purpose  of  relinquishing 
or  carrying  the  above  measures  into  effect.  And 
we  have  appointed  this  day  in  particular  (anxious- 
ly desirous  of  being  fully  represented)  as  it  is  the 
day  previous  to  the  anniversary  meeting  of  the  revo- 
lution society  to  commemorate  the  birth  day  of  gene- 
ral Washington,  and  conceiving  many  gentlemen  may 
be  in  town  upon  so  pleasing  an  occasion. 
And  we  are  gentlemen,  with  all  respect  and  esteem, 
Your  humble  servants. 


437 

No.  24.  p.  229. 
A  letter  from  bishop  Provoost. 

''JVew  York,  Sept.  7,  1801. 
*'  Right  Rev.  and  dear  Sir, 

"  I  think  it  my  duty  to  request,  that,  as  Presi- 
dent of  the  house  of  bishops,  you  will  inform  that 
venerable  body,  that,  induced  by  ill  health,  and  some 
melancholy  occun*ences  in  my  family,  and  an  ardent 
wish  to  retire  from  all  public  employment,  I  resign- 
ed, at  the  last  meeting  of  our  church  convention,  my 
jurisdiction  as  bishop  of  the  protestant  episcopal 
church  in  the  state  of  New  York. 

I  am,  with  great  regard, 
Dear  and  Right  He  v.  Sir, 
Your  affectionate  brother, 

Samuel  Provoost. 
Right  Rev.  Bishop  White." 

The  house  of  bishops  having  considered  the  sub- 
ject brought  before  them  by  the  letter  of  bishop  Pro- 
voost, and  by  the  message  from  the  house  of  clerical 
and  lay  deputies,  touching  the  same,  can  see  no 
grounds  on  which  to  believe,  that  the  contemplated 
resignation  is  consistent  with  ecclesiastical  order,  or 
with  the  practice  of  episcopal  churches  in  any  ages, 
or  with  the  tenor  of  the  office  of  consecration.  Ac- 
cordingly, while  they  sympathize  most  tenderly  with 
their  brother  bishop  Provoost,  on  account  of  that  ill 
health,  and  those  melancholy  occurrences  which  have 
led  to  the  design  in  question,  they  judge  it  to  be  in- 
consistent with  the  sacred  trust  committed  to  them, 
to  recognize  the  bishop's  act  as  an  effectual  resigna- 


438 

tion  of  his  episcopal  j  uri  sdiction .  Nevertheless,  being 
sensible  of  the  present  exigencies  of  the  church  of 
New  York,  and  approving  of  their  making  provision 
for  the  actual  discharge  of  the  duties  of  the  episco- 
pacy, the  bishops  of  this  house  are  ready  to  conse- 
crate to  the  office  of  bishop,  any  person  who  may  be 
presented  to  them  with  the  requisite  testimonials  from 
the  general  and  state  conventions;  and  of  whose  re- 
ligious, moral,  and  literary  character,  due  satisfac- 
tion may  be  given.  But  this  house  must  be  under- 
stood to  be  explicit  in  their  declaration,  that  they  shall 
consider  such  a  person  as  assistant  or  co-adjutor  bish- 
op, during  bishop  Provoost's  lil'e,  although  competent 
in  point  of  character  to  all  the  episcopal  duties;  the 
extent  in  which  the  same  shall  be  discharged  by  him, 
to  be  dependent  on  such  regulations  as  expediency 
may  dictate  to  the  church  in  New  York,  grounded 
on  the  indisposition  of  bishop  Provoost,  and  with  his 
concurrence. 

No.  25. 

Forms  of  Subscription. 

Form  in  this  church — "I  do  believe  the  holy 
scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  to  be  the 
word  of  God,  and  to  contain  all  things  necessary  to  sal- 
vation. And  I  do  solemnly  engage  to  conform  to  the 
doctrines  and  worship  of  the  protestant  episcopal 
church  in  these  United  States.^^ 

Form  in  the  church  of  England — The  36th  ca- 
non requires  the  candidates,  after  reference  1st,  to 
the  royal  supremacy,  2nd,  to  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer  with  the  ordinal,  and  3rd,  to  the  39  articles, 


439 

to  signify  liis  assent  as  follows — "  I.  N.  N.  do  wil- 
lingly and  ex  animo  subscribe  to  those  three  articles 
above  mentioned,  and  to  all  things  that  are  contained 
in  them." 

No.  26.  p.  246 

The  house  resumed  the  consideration  of  the  mat- 
ters brought  before  them  by  the  Rev.  Ammi  Rogers, 
and  came  to  the  following  determination  concerning 
the  same: 

After  full  inquiry,  and  fair  examination  of  all  the 
evidence  that  could  be  procured,  it  appears  to  this 
house,  that  the  said  Ammi  Rogers  had  produced  to 
the  standing  committee  of  New  York  (upon  the 
strength  of  which  he  obtained  holy  orders)  a  certifi- 
cate, signed  with  the  name  of  the  Rev.  Philo  Perry, 
which  certificate  was  not  written  nor  signed  by  him. 

That  the  conduct  of  the  said  Ammi  Rogers  in 
the  state  of  Connecticut,  during  his  residence  in  that 
state,  since  he  left  New  York,  has  been  insulting,  re- 
fractory, and  schismatical  in  the  highest  degree;  and, 
were  it  tolerated,  would  prove  subversive  of  all  or- 
der and  discipline  in  the  church;  and  that  the  state- 
ment which  he  made  in  justification  of  his  conduct, 
was  a  mere  tissue  of  equivocation  and  evasion,  and, 
of  course,  served  rather  to  defeat  than  to  establish 
his  purpose. 

Therefore,  this  house  do  approve  of  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  church  in  Connecticut,  in  reproving 
the  said  Ammi  Rogers,  and  prohibiting  him  from 
the  performance  of  any  ministerial  duties  within  that 
diocess;  and,  moreover,  are  of  opinion,  that  he  de- 


440 

serves  a  severer  ecclesiastical  censure,  that  of  de- 
gradation from  the  ministry. 

In  regard  to  the  question,  To  what  authority  is 
Mr.  Rogers  amenable?  this  house  are  sensible,  that 
there  not  having  been  previously  to  the  present  con- 
vention, any  sufficient  provision  for  a  case  of  a  cler- 
gyman removing  from  one  diocess  to  another,  it 
might  easily  happen,  that  different  sentiments  would 
arise  as  to  this  point.  We  are  of  opinion,  that  Mr. 
Rogers^s  residence  being  in  Connecticut,  it  is  to  the 
authority  of  that  diocess  he  is  exclusively  amenable. 
But  as  the  imposition  practised  with  a  view  to  the 
ministry  was  in  New  York,  we  recommend  to  the 
bishop  and  standing  committee  of  that  state,  io  send 
to  the  bishop  in  Connecticut  such  documents,  duly 
attested,  of  the  measure  referred  to,  as  will  be  a 
ground  of  procedure  in  that  particular. 

We  further  direct  the  secretary,  to  deliver  a  copy 
of  the  above  to  the  clerical  deputies  from  Connecti- 
cut, and  another  copy  to  the  Rev.  Ammi  Rogers. 
And  we  further  direct,  that  either  of  the  aforesaid 
parties  be  permitted  to  have  any  documents  respec- 
tively delivered  in  by  them,  a  copy  of  it  being  first 
taken;  except  the  petition  and  affidavit  of  the  Rev. 
Ammi  Rogers,  of  which  he  may  have  a  copy  if  de- 
sired, as  may  either  of  the  parties  have  of  any  docu- 
ment delivered  by  the  other  party. 

No.  27. 
Of  tJie  Homilies. 
The  house  of  bishops,  taking  into  consideration, 
that  the  two  books  of  homilies  are  referred  to  in  the 


441 

35tii  article  of  this  church,  as  containing  a  body  of 
sound  christian  doctrine;  and  knowing,  by  their  re- 
spective experience,  the  scarcity  of  the  volume,  ren- 
dering it  diliicult  for  some  candidates  in  tlie  ministry 
to  possess  opportunities  of  studying  its  contents,  pro- 
pose to  the  house  of  clerical  and  lay  deputies,  to 
make  it  a  standing  instruction  to  every  bishop,  and 
to  the  ecclesiastical  authority  in  every  state  destitute 
of  a  bishop,  to  be  furnished  (as  soon  as  may  be)  with 
a  copy  or  copies  of  said  work,  and  to  require  it  to 
be  studied  by  all  candidates  for  the  ministry  within 
their  respective  bounds:  under  the  expectation,  that 
when  offering  for  ordination,  the  knowledge  of  its 
contents  will  be  indispensibly  required. 

This  was  concurred  in,  by  the  house  of  clerical 
and  lay  deputies. 

No.  28. 
Concerning  posture,  dwing  psalmody. 
Whereas,  a  diversity  of  custom  has  of  late  years 
prevailed  in  the  posture  of  ministers  and  of  the  peo- 
ple, during  the  act  of  singing  the  psalms  and  the 
hymns  in  metre;  the  former  practice  of  sitting  du- 
ring this  part  of  the  service  gradually  giving  way  to 
the  more  comely  posture  of  standing;  it  is  hereby 
recommended  by  this  convention,  that  it  be  consider- 
ed as  the  duty  of  the  ministers  of  this  church,  to  en- 
courage the  use  of  the  latter  posture,  and  to  induce 
the  members  of  their  congregations,  as  circumstances 
may  permit,  to  do  the  same:  allowance  to  be  made 
for  cases,  in  which  it  may  be  considered  inconvenient 
by  age,  or  by  infirmity.     Practice  under  this  recom- 

3  K 


442 

mendation,  is  to  begin  from  the  time  when  suitable 
information  shall  have  been  given  by  the  clergy  to 
their  respective  flocks.  And,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of 
every  minister,  to  give  notice  of  this  recommendation 
to  his  congregation,  at  such  time,  as  in  his  discretion 
may  be  the  most  proper. 

The  carrying  into  effect  of  the  contemplated 
change,  may  be  delayed  by  the  bishop  of  any  diocess, 
or,  where  there  is  no  bishop,  by  the  ecclesiastical 
authority  therein,  until  there  shall  have  been  time 
and  opportunity  of  explaining  satisfactorily  the 
grounds  of  the  measure. 

No.  29. 

Of  a  proposal  of  iieio  anthems,  and  of  sanction  re- 
quested in  favour  of  a  proposed  hook. 

The  following  proposition  was  submitted  and 
agreed  to,  and  communicated  to  the  house  of  clerical 
and  lay  deputies. 

The  house  of  bishops  communicate  to  the  house 
of  clerical  and  lay  deputies,  the  following  resolve, 
and  the  following  rule  of  the  house  of  bishops,  to  be 
entered  on  their  journal  after  being  returned  by  the 
house  of  clerical  and  lay  deputies. 

There  was  laid  before  the  house,  an  address  from 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Wm.  Smith,  of  Connecticut,  togetlier 
with  sundry  anthems  selected  from  holy  scripture, 
and  adapted  to  certain  fasts  and  feasts  of  the  church. 
The  object  of  the  address,  is  to  induce  the  establish- 
ment of  the  said  anthems  as  parts  of  the  liturgy. 

Whereupon,  Resolved,  That  it  is  not  expedient 
during  this  convention,  to  go  into  a  review,  either  in 


443 

whole  or  in  part,  of  the  book  of  Common  Prayer. 
It  could  not,  however,  but  give  satisfaction  to  the 
bishops  to  recollect,  that  anthems  taken  from  scrip- 
ture, and  judiciously  arranged,  may,  according  to  the 
known  allowance  of  this  church,  be  sung  in  congre- 
gations at  the  discretion  of  their  respective  ministers. 
On  this  occasion,  a  question  arose,  how  far  it  may 
be  proper  at  any  meeting  of  the  convention,  to  give 
their  sanction,  or  that  of  this  house  in  particular,  to 
any  work,  however  tending  to  religious  instruction, 
or  to  the  excitement  of  pious  affections.  In  reference 
to  this  subject,  it  is  the  unanimous  opinion  of  the 
bishops  present,  tliat  no  such  sanction  should  be 
given.  And  it  is  hereby  made  a  rule  of  the  house, 
that  if  any  application  should  be  made  tending  to 
such  effect,  it  shall  not  be  considered  as  regularly 
brought  before  them. 

The  above  was  returned  by  the  house  of  clerical 
and  lay  deputies,  with  their  respectful  thanks,  for 
what  they  were  pleased  to  call  the  judicious  course 
adopted  by  the  bishops,  in  reference  to  the  two  sub- 
jects. 

No.  30. 

Concerning  the  identity  of  this  church,   with  the 
foiiTier  church  of  England,  in  America. 

The  following  declaration  was  proposed  and 
agreed  to: 

It  having  been  credibly  stated  to  the  house  of 
bishops,  that  on  questions  in  reference  to  property 
devised  before  the  revolution,  to  congregations  be- 


444 

longing  to  "  the  church  of  England,"  and  to  uses 
connected  with  that  name,  some  doubts  have  been 
entertained  in  regard  to  the  identity  of  the  body  to 
which  the  two  names  have  been  appRed,  the  house 
think  it  expedient  to  make  the  declaration,  and  to 
request  the  concurrence  of  the  house  of  clerical  and 
lay  deputies  therein — That  "  The  protestant  episco- 
pal church  in  the  United  States  of  America"  is  the 
same  body  heretofore  known  in  these  states,  by  the 
name  of  ''the  church  of  England;"  the  change  of 
name,  although  not  of  religious  principle,  in  doctrine, 
or  in  worship,  or  in  discipline,  being  induced  by  a 
characteristic  of  the  church  of  England,  supposing 
the  independence  of  christian  churches,  under  the 
different  sovereignties,  to  which,  respectively,  their 
allegiance  in  civil  concerns  belongs.  But  that  when 
the  severance  alluded  to  took  place,  and  ever  since, 
this  church  conceives  of  herself,  as  professing  and 
acting  on  the  principles  of  the  church  of  England, 
is  evident  from  the  organization  of  our  conventions, 
and  from  their  subsequent  proceedings,  as  recorded 
on  the  journals;  to  which,  accordingly,  this  conven- 
tion refers  for  satisfaction  in  the  premises.  But  it 
would  be  contrary  to  fact,  were  any  one  to  infer, 
that  the  discipline  exercised  in  this  church,  or  that 
any  proceedings  therein,  are  at  all  dependent  on  the 
will  of  the  civil  or  of  the  ecclesiastical  authority  of 
any  foreign  country. 

The  above  declaration  having  been  communi- 
cated to  the  house  of  clerical  and  lay  deputies,  they 
returned  for  answer  that  they  concurred  therein. 


445 

No.  31. 
From  the  Journal. 

The  house  of  bishops,  solicitous  for  the  preserva- 
tion of  the  purity  of  the  church,  and  the  piety  of  its 
members,  are  induced  to  impress  upon  the  clergy 
the  important  duty,  with  a  discreet  but  earnest  zeal, 
of  warning  the  people  of  their  respective  cures,  of 
the  danger  of  an  indulgence  in  those  worldly  pleasures 
which  may  tend  to  witiidravv  the  affections  from  spi- 
ritual things.  And  especially  on  the  subject  of  gaming, 
of  amusements  involving  cruelty  to  the  brute  creation, 
and  of  theatrical  representations,  to  which  some  pe- 
culiar circumstances  have  called  their  attention, — 
they  do  not  hesitate  to  express  their  unanimous  opi- 
nion, that  these  amusements,  as  well  from  their  li- 
centious tendency,  as  from  the  strong  temptations  to 
vice  which  they  afford,  ought  not  to  be  frequented. 
And  the  bishops  cannot  refrain  from  expressing  their 
deep  regret  at  the  information,  that  in  some  of  our 
large  cities,  so  little  respect  is  paid  to  the  feelings  of 
the  members  of  the  church,  that  theatrical  represen- 
tations are  fixed  for  the  evenings  of  her  most  solemn 
festivals. 

Fiom  the  Pastoral  Letter, 

Both  to  the  clergy  and  to  the  laity  we  desire  to 
say,  but  most  pointedly  to  the  former,  that  the  chris- 
tian profession  exacts  a  greater  abstraction  from  the 
world  than  that  which  consists  in  the  abstaining  from 
acknowledged  sin.  There  are  practices  so  nearly 
allied,  and  so  easily  abused  to  it,  that  we  conceive 
of  a  professor  of  religion  in  duty  bound  either  not 
to  countenance  them  in  the  least  degree;  or,  as  is 


446 

allowable  in  regard  to  some  of  the  matters  contem- 
plated, to  avoid  the  so  employing  of  time,  and  the 
so  lavishing  of  affection,  as  puts  into  a  state  of  sin, 
although  not  necessarily  belonging  to  the  subject. 
We  would  be  far  from  an  endeavour  after  an  abridg- 
ment of  christian  liberty.  But  we  cannot  forget, 
that  in  a  list  of  the  classes  of  evil  hvers,  there  is  in- 
troduced the  description  of  persons  who  are  "  lovers 
of  pleasure  more  than  lovers  of  God;"  nor,  in  respect 
to  the  female  professors  of  religion  in  particular,  the 
admonition,  that  "  she  who  liveth  in  pleasure  is  dead 
while  she  liveth."  We  are  aware  of  the  difficulty  of 
drawing  the  line  between  the  use  of  the  world  and 
the  abuse  of  it:  that  being  conceived  of  by  different 
persons  equally  pious  and  virtuous,  according  to  the 
diversity  of  natural  temperament,  and  of  the  states 
of  society  in  which  they  have  been  placed  by  educa- 
tion or  by  habit:  but  we  know,  that  where  the  con- 
science can  reconcile  itself  to  the  drawing  as  near 
to  the  territory  of  sin,  as  it  can  persuade  itself  to  be 
consistent  with  the  still  standing  on  secure  ground, 
deadness  to  spiritual  good  at  the  best,  but  more  com- 
monly subjection  to  its  opposite  is  the  result. 

In  speaking  of  subjects  of  the  above  description, 
we  would  not  be  understood  to  class  among  them 
any  practice  which  is  either  immoral  in  itself,  or  so 
customarily  accompanied  by  immorality,  that  the  one 
is  necessarily  countenanced  with  the  other.  Of  the 
former  description,  is  gaming  in  all  the  variety  of  its 
exercise:  and  the  like  may  be  said  of  whatever  in- 
volves cruelty  to  the  lower  animals  of  the  creation. 
If  the  same  cannot  be  affirmed  of  works  of  tiction, 


447 

and  of  putting  speeches  into  the  mouths  of  feigned 
characters,  for  the  purpose  of  instruction  or  of  en- 
tertainment; yet  as  the  question  is  apphcable  to  the 
exhibitions  of  the  theatre,  such  as  they  have  been  in 
every  age,  and  are  at  present;  we  do  not  hesitate  to 
declare  unanimously  our  opinion,  that  it  is  a  foul 
source  of  very  extensive  corruption.  We  lay  little 
stress  on  the  plea,  that  it  is  a  matter  practicable  in 
social  institutions,  to  purge  the  subject  from  the 
abuses  which  have  been  attached  to  it.  When  this 
shall  have  been  accomplished,  it  will  be  time  to  take 
another  ground.  But,  in  truth,  we  are  not  persuaded 
of  the  possibility  of  the  thing,  when  we  consider  that 
the  prominent  and  most  numerous  patrons  of  the 
stage  are  always  likely  to  be  the  least  disposed  to 
the  seriousness  which  should  enter  into  whatever  is 
designed  to  discriminate  between  innocence  and  guilt. 
While  the  opinions  and  the  passions  of  such  persons 
shall  continue  to  serve  the  purpose  of  a  looking-glass, 
by  which  the  exhibited  characters  are  to  be  adjusted 
to  the  taste  of  so  great  a  proportion  of  the  public, 
we  despair  of  seeing  the  stage  rescued  from  the  dis- 
gusting effusions  of  profaneness  and  obscenity;  and 
much  less  of  that  mean  of  corruption,  more  insinu- 
ating than  any  other — the  exhibiting  of  what  is  radi- 
cally base,  in  alliance  with  properties  captivating  to 
the  imagination. 

While  we  address  this  alike  to  the  clergy  and  to 
the  laity,  we  consider  it  as  especially  hostile  to  the 
usefulness  of  the  former.  And  even  in  regard  to 
some  matters  confessed  to  be  innocent  in  themselves. 


448 

their  innocency  may  depend  much  on  many  circum- 
stances, and  of  professional  character  among  others. 
The  ear  of  a  clergyman  should  always  be  open  to 
a  call  to  the  most  serious  duties  of  his  station.  What- 
ever may  render  it  difficult  to  his  own  mind  to  recur 
to  those  duties  with  the  solemnity  which  they  require, 
or  may  induce  an  opinion  in  others,  that  such  a  re- 
currence must  be  unwelcome  to  him  from  some  en- 
joyment not  congenial  with  holy  exercise,  ought  to 
be  declined  by  him.  If  it  be  a  sacrifice,  the  making 
of  it  is  exacted  by  what  ought  to  be  his  ruling  wish, 
the  serving  of  God,  and  the  being  useful  to  his  fellow- 
men,  in  the  discharge  of  the  duties  of  the  ministry. 

No.  32.  Page.  312. 
£cts  of  the  Convention  of  1 785. 

^  General  Ecclesiastical  Constitution  of  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Church,  in  tJie  United  States  of 
America. 

Whereas,  in  the  course  of  Divine  Providence, 
the  protestant  episcopal  church  in  the  United  States 
of  America  is  become  independent  of  all  foreign  au- 
thority, civil  and  ecclesiastical: 

And  whereas,  at  a  meeting  of  clerical  and  lay 
deputies  of  the  said  church  in  sundry  of  the  said 
states,  viz.  in  the  states  of  Massachusetts,  Rhode- 
Island,  Connecticut,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Penn- 
sylvania, Delaware,  and  Maryland,  held  in  the  city 
of  New  York,  on  the  6th  and  7th  days  of  October, 
in  the  year  of  our  Lord  178i,  it  was  recommended 
to  this  church  in  the  said  states  represented  as  afore- 
said, and  proposed  to  this  church  in  the  states  not 


449 

represented,  that  they  should  send  deputies  to  a  con- 
vention to  be  held  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  on  the 
Tuesday  before  the  feast  of  St.  Michael  in  this  pre- 
sent year,  in  order  to  unite  in  a  constitution  of  ec- 
clesiastical government,  agreeably  to  certain  funda- 
mental principles,  expressed  in  the  said  recommen- 
dation and  proposal: 

And  whereas,  in  consequence  of  the  said  recom- 
mendation and  proposal,  clerical  and  lay  deputies 
have  been  duly  appointed  from  the  said  church  in 
the  states  of  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania, 
Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia,  and  South  Carolina: 

The  said  deputies  being  now  assembled,  and  ta- 
king into  consideration  the  importance  of  maintain- 
ing uniformity  in  doctrine,  discipline  and  worship  in 
the  said  church,  do  hereby  determine  and  declare, 

1.  That  there  shall  be  a  general  convention  of 
the  protestant  episcopal  church  in  the  United  States 
of  America,  which  shall  be  held  in  the  city  of  Phi- 
ladelphia, on  the  third  Tuesday  in  June,  in  the  year 
of  our  Lord  1786,  and  for  ever  after,  once  in  three 
years,  on  the  third  Tuesday  of  June,  in  such  place 
as  shall  be  determined  by  the  convention;  and  special 
meetings  may  be  held  at  such  other  times,  and  in 
such  place,  as  shall  be  hereafter  provided  for,  and 
this  church,  in  a  majority  of  the  states  aforesaid, 
shall  be  represented  before  they  shall  proceed  to  bu- 
siness; except  that  the  representation  of  this  church 
from  two  states,  shall  be  sufficient  to  adjourn;  and, 
in  all  business  of  the  convention,  freedom  of  debate 
shall  be  allowed. 

3l 


450 

2.  There  shall  be  a  representation  of  both  clergy 
and  laity  of  the  church  in  each  state,  which  shall 
consist  of  one  or  more  deputies,  not  exceedin^^;  four, 
of  each  order;  and  in  all  questions,  the  said  church 
in  each  state  shall  have  one  vote;  and  a  majority  of 
suffrages  shall  be  conclusive. 

3.  In  the  said  church,  in  every  state  represented 
in  this  convention,  there  shall  be  a  convention  con- 
sisting of  the  clergy  and  lay  deputies  of  the  congre- 
gations. 

4.  "  The  book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  adminis- 
tration of  the  sacraments,  and  other  rites  and  cere- 
monies of  the  church,  according  to  the  use  of  the 
church  of  England,"  shall  be  continued  to  be  used 
by  this  church,  as  the  same  is  altered  by  this  con- 
vention, in  a  certain  instrument  of  writing,  passed  by 
their  authority,  entituled  "  Alterations  of  the  liturgy 
of  the  protestant  episcopal  church,  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  order  to  render  the  same  con- 
formable to  the  American  revolution  and  the  consti- 
tutions of  the  respective  states." 

5.  In  every  state  where  there  shall  be  a  bishop 
duly  consecrated  and  settled,  and  who  shall  have  ac-^ 
ceded  to  the  articles  of  this  general  ecclesiastical 
constitution,  he  shall  be  considered  as  a  member  of 
the  convention  ex  officio, 

6.  The  bishop  or  bishops  in  every  state,  shall  be 
chosen  agreeably  to  such  rules  as  shall  be  fixed  by 
the  respective  conventions;  and  every  bishop  of  this 
church,  shall  confine  the  exercise  of  his  episcopal 


451 

office  to  his  proper  jurisdiction;  unless  requested  to 
ordain  or  confirm  by  any  church  destitute  of  a  bishop. 

7.  A  protestant  episcopal  church  in  any  of  the 
United  States  not  now  represented,  may  at  any  time 
hereafter  be  admitted,  on  acceding  to  the  articles  of 
this  union. 

8.  Every  clergyman,  whether  bishop,  presbytei 
or  deacon,  shall  be  amenable  to  the  authority  of  the 
convention  in  the  state  to  which  he  belongs,  so  far 
as  relates  to  suspension  or  removal  from  office;  and 
the  convention  in  each  state  shall  institute  rules  for 
their  conduct,  and  an  equitable  mode  of  trial. 

9.  And  whereas,  it  is  represented  to  this  conven- 
tion, to  be  the  desire  of  the  protestant  episcopal 
church  in  these  states,  that  there  may  be  further  al- 
terations of  the  liturgy,  than  such  as  are  made  neces- 
sary by  the  American  revolution;  therefore,  the 
"  book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  administration  of 
the  sacraments  and  other  rites  and  ceremonies  of 
the  church,  according  to  the  use  of  the  church  of 
England,"  as  altered  by  an  instrument  of  writing, 
passed  under  the  authority  of  this  convention,  en- 
tituled  "  Alterations  in  the  book  of  Common  Prayer, 
and  administration  of  the  sacraments  and  other  rites 
and  ceremonies  of  the  church,  according  to  the  use 
of  the  church  of  England,  proposed  and  recom- 
mended to  the  protestant  episcopal  church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,"  shall  be  used  in  this 
church,  when  the  same  shall  have  been  ratified  by 
the  conventions  which  have  respectively  sent  deputies 
to  this  general  convention. 


452 

10.  No  person  shall  be  ordained  or  permitted  to 
officiate  as  a  minister  in  this  church,  until  he  shall 
have  subscribed  the  following  declaration,  "  I  do  be- 
heve  the  holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
tament to  be  the  word  of  God,  and  to  contain  all 
things  necessary  to  salvation;  and  I  do  solemnly  en- 
gage to  conform  to  the  doctrines  and  worship  of 
the  protestant  episcopal  church,  as  settled  and  deter- 
mined in  the  book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  adminis- 
tration of  the  sacraments,  set  forth  by  the  general 
convention  of  the  protestant  episcopal  church  in 
these  United  States." 

1 1 .  This  general  ecclesiastical  constitution,  when 
ratified  by  the  church  in  the  different  states,  shall  be 
considered  as  fundamental;  and  shall  be  unalterable 
by  the  convention  of  the  church  in  any  state. 

Alterations  agreed  on  and  confirmed  in  conven- 
tion, for  rendering  the  liturgy  conformable  to  the 
principles  of  the  American  Revolution,  and  the  con- 
stitutions of  the  several  states. 

1st.  That  in  the  suffrages  after  the  creed,  instead 
of  O  Lord,  save  the  king,  be  said  0  Lo^d,  bless  and 
preserve  these  United  States. 

2nd.  That  the  prayer  for  the  royal  family,  in  the 
morning  and  evening  service,  be  omitted. 

3rd.  That  in  the  Litany  the  15,  16,  17,  and  18th. 
petitions,  be  omitted,  and  that  instead  of  the  20  and 
2 1  st  petitions,  be  substituted  the  following — that  it 
may  please  thee  to  endue  the  congress  of  these  United 
States,  and  all  others  in  authority,  legislative,  execur 


453 

five,  and  judicial,  ivith  grace,  imsdom  and  under- 
standing, to  execute  justice  and  maintain  truth. 

4th.  Tliat  when  the  litany  is  not  said,  the  prayer 
for  the  high  court  of  parliament  be  thus  altered — 
''  Most  gracious  God,  we  Juunbltj  beseech  thee,  as  for 
these  United  States  m  general,  so  especially  for  their 
deles^ates  in  congress,  that  thou  wouldest  be  pleased  to 
direct  and  prosper  all  tJieir  consultations  to  the  ad- 
vancement of  thy  gloiy,  the  good  of  thy  church,  the 
safety,  honour  and  ivelfare  of  thy  people,  that  all 
things  may  be  so  ordered  and  settled  by  their  endea- 
vours upon  the  best  and  surest  foundations,  that  peace 
and  happiness,  truth  and  justice,  religion  and  piety, 
may  be  establisJied  among  usfoi^  all  generations,"  ^c. 
to  the  end:  and  the  praye^rfor  the  king's  majesty,  as 
follows:  viz. — O  Lord,  Our  heavenly  Father,  the  high 
and  mighty  Ruler  of  the  universe,  ivho  dost  from  thy 
throne,  behold  all  the  dwellers  upon  earth;  we  most 
heartily  beseech  thee,  with  thy  favour  to  behold  all  in 
autfiority,  legislative,  executive  and  judicial  in  these 
United  States;  and  so  replenish  them  with  the  grace 
of  thy  holy  spint.  that  they  may  alivay  incline  to  thy 
will  and  ivalk  in  thy  way.  I}rulu£  them  plenteously 
with  heavenly  gifts,  grant  them  in  health  and  wealth 
long  to  I've  and,  that  after  this  life,  they  may  attain 
everlasting  joy  and  felicity,  through  Jems  Christ  our 
Loi^d.  Amen. 

5th.  That  the  first  collect  for  the  king  in  the  com- 
munion service  be  omitted;  and  that  the  2nd  be  al- 
tered as  follows — instead  of  "f/ie  heaHs  of  kings  are 
\n  thy  iixles  and  governance"  be  said — "  the  heaiis 


454 

of  all  rulers  are  in  thy  governance;  and  instead  of 
the  words — '■'  Jieart  of  George  thy  servant,  insert — so 
to  direct  the  rulers  of  these  states,  Wc/'  changing  the 
singular  pronouns  to  the  plural. 

7th.  That  in  the  answer  in  the  Catechism  to  the 
question — "  What  is  thy  duty  towards  thy  neigh- 
bour?' for  "  to  Jioiwur  and  obey  the  king"  be  substitu- 
ted— "  to  honour  and  obey  my  civil  rulers,  to  submit 
myself  ^c." 

8th.  That  instead  of  the  observations  of  the  5th 
of  November,  the  30th  of  Jauuary,  the  29th  of 
May,  and  the  25th  of  October,  the  following  service 
be  used  on  the  4th  of  July,  being  the  Anniversary 
of  Independence. 

9th.  That  in  the  forms  of  prayer  to  be  used  at 
sea,  in  the  prayer  "  O  eternal  God,  ^c"  instead  of 
those  words — "  unto  our  most  gracious  sovereign 
Lord  king  George  and  his  kingdoms,"  be  inserted  the 
words — "  the  United  ^tofes  of  America,"  and  that  in- 
stead of  the  word  "  Island"  be  inserted  the  word 
"  country;"  and  that  in  the  collect  "  O  Almighty 
God,  the  Sovereign  Commander,  is'c"  be  omitted  the 
words — "  the  honour  of  our  sovereign,"  and  the  words 
"  tlie  honour  of  our  country"  inserted. 

Service  for  the  Uh  of  July. 

With  the  sentences  before  inorning  and  evening 
prayer. 

The  Lord  hath  been  mindful  of  us,  and  he 
shall  bless  us,  he  shall  bless  them  that  fear  the  Lord, 
both  small  and  great.  0  that  men  w  ould  therelbre  praise 


455 

the  Lord,  for  his  goodness,  and  declare  the  w  onders 
that  he  docth  for  the  childicn  of  men. 

Hymn,  itistead  of  the  Venite. 

My  song  shall  be  ahvay  of  the  loving  kindness  of 
the  Lord:  with  my  mouth  will  I  ever  be  showing  his 
truth  from  one  generation  to  another.  Psal.  89.  1. 

The  merciful  and  gracious  Lord  hath  so  done 
his  marvellous  works:  that  they  ought  to  be  had  in 
remembrance.  Psal.  111.  4. 

Who  can  express  the  noble  acts  of  the  Lord:  or 
show  fortli  all  his  praise.  Psal.  106.  2. 

The  works  of  the  Lord  are  great:  sought  out  of 
all  them  that  have  pleasure  therein.  Psal.  111.  2. 

For  he  will  not  alway  be  chiding:  neither  keep- 
eth  he  his  anger  for  ever.  Psal.  103.  9. 

He  hath  not  dealt  with  us  after  our  sins:  nor  re- 
warded us  according  to  our  wickedness.  Verse  10. 

For  look  how  high  the  heaven  is  in  comparison 
of  the  earth:  so  great  is  his  mercy  toward  them  that 
fear  him.  Verse  11. 

Yea,  like  as  a  father  pitietli  his  own  children: 
even  so  is  the  Lord  merciful  unto  them  that  fear 
him.   Verse  11. 

Thou,  0  Godj  hast  proved  us:  thou  also  hast  tri- 
ed us,  like  as  silver  is  tried.  Psal.  66.  9. 

Thou  didst  remember  us  in  our  low  estate,  and 
redeem  us  from  our  enemies:  for  thy  mercy  endu- 
reth  for  ever.  Psal,  136.  23,  24. 

Proper  Psahns,  118,  except.  V.  10,  11,  12,  13, 
22.  23,  to  conclude  with  V.  24, 


456 

1.  Lesson  Deut  8.     2.  Lesson  Thess.  5.  V.  \2, 
™23  both  inclusive. 

Collect  for  the  day 

Almighty  God,  who  hast  in  all  ages  showed  foitli 
thy  power  and  mercy  in  the  wonderful  preservation 
of  thy  church,  and  in  the  protection  of  every  nation 
and  people  professing  thy  holy  and  eternal  truth,  and 
putting  their  sure  trust  in  thee;  we  yield  thee  our 
unfeigned  thanks  and  praise  for  all  thy  public  mer- 
cies, and  more  especially  for  that  signal  and  w  onder- 
ful  manifestation  of  thy  providence  which  we  com- 
memorate this  day;  wherefore  not  unto  us,  0  Lord, 
not  unto  us,  but  unto  thy  Name  be  ascribed  all  ho- 
nour and  glory,  in  all  churches  of  the  Saints,  from 
generation  to  generation,  through  Jesus  Christ  our 
Lord.  Amen. 

Thanksgiving  for  the  day. 

0  God,  whose  Name  is  excellent  in  all  the  earth, 
and  thy  glory  above  the  heavens;  who  as  on  this  day 
didst  inspire  and  direct  the  hearts  of  our  delegates 
in  Congress,  to  lay  the  perpetual  foundations  of  peace, 
liberty,  and  safety;  we  bless  and  adore  thy  glorious 
Majesty,  for  this  thy  loving  kindness  and  providence. 
And  we  humbly  pray  that  the  devout  sense  of  this 
signal  mercy  may  renew  and  increase  in  us  a  spirit 
of  love  and  thankfulness  to  thee  its  only  Author,  a 
spirit  of  peaceable  submission  to  the  laws  and  govern- 
ment of  our  country,  and  a  spirit  of  fervent  zeal  for 
our  holy  religion,  which  thou  hast  preserved  and  se- 
cured to  us  and  our  posterity.     May  we  improve 


457 

these  inestimable  blessings  for  the  advancement  of 
religion,  liberty,  and  science  throughout  this  land,  till 
the  wilderness  and  solitary  place  be  glad  through  us, 
and  the  desert  rejoice  and  blossom  as  the  rose.  This 
we  beg  through  the  merits  of  Jesus  Christ  our  Sa- 
viour, dmen* 

Alterations  in  the  book  of  Common  Prayer  and 
administration  of  the  saa^aments,  and  other  rites 
and  ceremonies  of  tlie  church,  according  to  the  use 
of  the  church  of  England,  poposed  and  recom- 
mended to  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church  in  the 
United  States  of  Jlmenca. 

The  order  for  morning  and  evening  service,  dai- 
ly throughout  the  year. 

1st.  The  following  sentences  of  Scripture,  are  or- 
dered to  be  prefixed  to  the  usual  sentences,  viz. 

The  Lord  is  in  his  holy  temple;  let  all  the  earth 
keep  silence  before  him.  Hah.  ii.  20. 

From  the  rising  of  the  sun  even  unto  the  going 
down  of  the  same,  my  name  shall  be  great  among  the 
Gentiles;  and  in  every  place  incense  shall  be  oflbred 
unto  my  name,  and  a  pure  offering:  for  my  name  shall 
be  great  among  the  heathen,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts. 
Mai.  i.  11. 

Let  the  words  of  my  mouth,  and  the  meditation 
of  my  heart,  be  alway  acceptable  in  thy  sight,  0  Lord, 
my  strength  and  my  Redeemer.  Psal.  xix.  1 4. 

*  The  Epistle  and  the  gospel  were  added  by  the  committee, 
agreeably  to  an  authority  which  they  conceived  to  be  vested  in 
fhem. 

3m 


458 

2d.  That  the  rubric  preceding  the  absolution,  be 
altered  thus — "  ^  declaration  to  be  made  by  the  Mi- 
nister alone,  standing,  concerning  the  forgiveness  of 

sins.'' 

3d.  That  in  the  Lord's  prayer,  the  word  "  who"  be 

substituted  in  the  room  of ''  which;"  and  that  "those 

ivho  trespass"  stand  instead  of  "  them  that  trespass." 

4.  That  the  "  Gloria  Patri"  be  ommitted  after  the 
"  0  come  let  us  sins;,  ^c."  and  in  every  other  place, 
where,  by  the  present  rubric  it  is  ordered  to  be  in- 
serted, to  "  the  end  of  the"  reading  psalms;  when, 
shall  be  said  or  sung  "  Gloria  Patri,  ^c."  or,  "  Glo- 
ry be  to  God  on  high,  and  in  earth  peace  and  good 
will  towards  men,  is'c"  at  the  discretion  of  the  Mi- 
nister. 

5th.  That  in  the  "  Tedeum"  instead  of  "  honour- 
able"  it  be  "  adorable,  true,  and  only  son;"  and  in- 
stead of  "  didst  not  abhon-  the  Virgin's  womb,"  "  didst 
humble  thyself  to  be  born  of  a  Virgin" 

6th.  That  until  a  proper  selection  of  psalms  be 
made,  each  minister  be  allowed  to  use  such  as  he 
may  chuse. 

7th.  That  the  same  liberty  be  allowed,  respecting 
the  lessons. 

8th.  That  the  article  in  "  the  Apostles  creed" 
"  he  descended  into  hell"  be  omitted. 

9th.  That  the  Athanasian  and  the  JVicene  creeds 
be  entirely  omitted. 

10th.  That  after  the  response  "  and  ivith  thy  spir- 
it," all  be  omitted  to  the  words  "  O  Lord  show  thy 
mercy  upon  us"  which  the  Minister  shall  pronounce, 
still  kneeling. 


459 

1  Ith.  That  ill  the  suffrage  "  make  thy  chosen  peo- 
ple joyful,"  the  word  "  chosen''  be  omitted;  and  also 
the  following  suiFrages,  to  "  O  God,  make  clean  our 
hearts  ivithimis," 

12th.  That  the  rubric  after  these  words  "  and 
take  not  thy  holy  spintfrom  its/'  be  omitted.  Then 
the  two  collects  to  be  said:  in  the  collect  for  grace, 
the  words  "  be  ordered,'^  to  be  omitted;  and  the  word 
"  be"  inserted,  instead  of  "  to  do  alway  that  is." 

13th.  In  the  collect  ''for  the  clergy  and  people" 
read — "Almighty  and  everlasting  God,senddown  up- 
on all  bislwps  and  other  pastors,  and  the  congregations 
committed  to  their  charge,  ^c"  to  the  end. 

14th.  (here  is  an  erasure  from  the  manuscript: 
the  article  being  found  a  repetition  of  part  of  the  13th.) 

15th.  That  the  Lord's  prayer  after  the  litany, 
and  the  subsequent  rubric  be  omitted. 

1 6th.  That  the  short  litany  be  read  as  follows — 
"  Son  of  God,  we  beseech  thee  to  hear  us.  Son  of  God, 
we  beseech  tJiee  to  hear  us.  O  Lambof  God,  that  takest 
away  the  sins  of  the  ivoild,  grant  us  thy  peace.  O 
Christ,  hear  us.  O  Chnst,  hear  us.  Lmd,  have 
mercy  upon  us  and  deal  not  with  us  according  to  our 
sins,  neither  reward  us  accoi^ding  to  our  iniquities." 
After  which,  omit  the  words — "  let  us  pray." 

17th.  That  the  Gloria  Patri,  after  O  Lord  anise, 
&?c.  be  omitted;  as  also  ''let  us  pray"  after  "we  put 
our  timst  in  thee." 

18th.  That  in  the  following  prayer,  instead  of 
"  righteously  have  deserved,"  it  be  "justly  have  deser- 
ved." 


460 

19th.  That  in  the  1st.  warning  for  the  communion, 
the  word  "  damnation,^'  following  the  words  "  in- 
crease your^^  be  read  "  condemnation;"  and  the  two 
paragraphs  after  these  words — "  or  else  come  not  to 
that  holy  table,  be  omitted;  and  the  following  one  be 
read,  and  if  there  be  any  of  you,  who  by  these  means, 
cannot  quiet  their  conscience,  c.  The  words  "  iea>  n- 
ed  and,  discreet,"  epithets  given  to  the  Minister,  to 
be  also  omitted. 

20th.  In  the  exhortation  to  the  communion,  let 
it  run  thus — "/or  as  the  benefd  is  great,  ^c.  to  drink 
his  blood,  so  is  the  danger  great,  if  we  receive  the  same 
unworthily.     Judge  therefore  yourselves,  ^c." 

21st.  That  in  the  rubric  preceding  the  absolu- 
tion, instead  of  "  projiownce  this  absolution,"  it  be — 
"  then  shall  the  Minister  stand  up,  and  turning  to  the 
peojjle,  say,  b  c" 

22d.  That  in  the  baptism  of  Infants,  Parents  may 
be  admitted  as  sponsors. 

23d.  That  the  Minister,  in  speaking  to  the  spon- 
sors, instead  of  these  words  "  vouchsafe  to  release 
him,  ^c"  say — "  release  him  from  sin;"  and  in  the 
2d  prayer,  instead  of  "  remission  of  his  sins,"  read 
— "  remission  of  sin." 

24th.  That  in  the  questions  addressed  to  the 
sponsors,  and  the  answers,  instead  of  the  present  form, 
it  be  as  follows — "  the  sinful  desires  of  the  flesh." 

25th.  "  Dost  thou  believe  the  articles  of  the  chnstian 
faith,  as  contained  in  the  ^^postles  creed,  and  wilt 
thou  endeavour  to  have  this  child  instructed  accoidin^- 


461 

ly?"  Answer:  I  do  believe  tliem,  aiid,  by  God's  help 
will  endeavour  so  to  do." 

Wilt  tlwu  emleavour  to  have  him  brought  up  in  the 
fear  of  God,  and  to  obey  God's  holy  will  and  com- 
mandments? Answer '• /i6'i//,  6/7  God's  assistance." 

2Gth.  That  the  sign  of  the  cross  may  be  omitted, 
if  particularly  desired  by  the  Sponsors  or  Parents, 
and  tlie  prayer  to  be  thus  altered  (by  tlie  direction  of 
a  short  rubric)  "  We  receive  this  child  into  the  congi^e- 
gation  of  Christ's  fiock;  and  pray  that  hereafter  he 
may  never  be  ashamed,  ^c."  to  the  end. 

21.  That  the  address — "  seeing  now  dearly  belov- 
ed, tjfc."  be  omitted. 

28th.  That  the  prayer  after  the  Lord's  prayer,  be 
thus  changed — "  ive  yield  thee  our  hearty  thanks,  ^c." 
to  "  receive  this  Infant  as  thine  own  child  by  baptism, 
and  to  inccn^porate  him,  ^c." 

29th.  That  in  the  following  exhortation,  the 
words  *'  to  renounce  tJie  devil  and  all  his  works,"  and 
in  the  charge  to  the  Sponsors,  the  words  '^  vulgar 
tongue"  be  omitted. 

30th.  That  the  forms  of  private  baptism  and  con- 
firmation, be  made  conformable  to  these  alterations. 

31st.  That  in  the  exhortation  before  matrimony, 
all  between  these  words  "  Iwly  matiimony,  and  there- 
fore if  any  man,  Sec."  be  omitted. 

3  2d.  That  the  words  "  I  plight  thee  my  troth"  be 
omitted  in  both  places;  and  also  the  words — "  ivith 
my  body  I  thee  worship;"  and  also — '^pledged  their 
troth  either  to  other.''' 

33d.  That  all  after  the  blessing  be  omitted. 


462 

34th.  In  the  burial  service,  instead  of  the  two 
Psahiis,  take  the  following  verses  of  both — viz.  Psal. 
39,  V.  7,  8,  9,  12,  13,  and  Psal.  90,  V.  13.  In  the 
rubric,  the  word  ^'^  unbaptized"  to  be  omitted. 

In  the  declaration  and  forms  of  interment,  begin- 
ning— "forasmuch  as,  ^c."  insert  the  following 
— "  Forasmuch  as  it  hath  pleased  Mmighty  God,  in 
his  wise  Providence,  to  take  out  of  this  world  the  soul 
of  our  deceased  brother  (sister)  we  therefore  commit 
his  (her)  body  to  the  ground — earth  to  earth,  ashes  to 
ashes,  dust  to  dust;  looking  for  the  general  resurrec- 
tion in  the  last  day  and  the  life  of  the  world  to  come 
through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ;  at  wlwse  second  coming 
in  glorious  Majesty  to  judge  the  world,  the  earth  and 
the  sea  shall  give  up  tlieir  dead;  and  the  corruptible  bo- 
dies of  those  who  sleep  in  him  shall  be  changed,  and 
made  like  unto  his  glorious  body,  according  to  the 
mighty  working,  whereby  he  is  able  to  subdue  all  things 
unto  himself. 

In  the  sentence  "  /  heard  a  voice,'^  Slc.  insert 
"who''  for  "which.'' 

The  prayer  following  the  Lord's  prayer  to  be 
omitted.  In  the  next  collect,  leave  out  the  words 
"  as  our  hope  is,  this  our  brother  doth."  For  "  them 
that,"  insert  "  those  who." 

35th,  In  the  visitation  of  the  sick,  instead  of  the 
absolution  as  it  now  stands,  insert  the  declaration  of 
forgiveness  which  is  appointed  in  the  communion 
service;  or,  either  of  the  collects  which  are  taken 
from  the  coinmination  office,  and  appropriated  to 
Ash  Wednesday,  may  be  used. 


463 

In  the  psalm,  omit  the  3d,  6th,  8th,  9th,  and  1  Ith 
verses.  In  the  commendatory  prayer,  for  "  miserable 
and  naughty,"  say  "vain  and  miserable."  Strike 
out  the  word  "purged." 

In  the  "prayer  for  persons  troubled  in  mind" 
omit  all  that  stands  hetween  the  words  "  afflicted 
servant,"  and  "  his  soul  is  full,"  Sic.  and  instead  there- 
of say  "  afflicted  servant,  iclwse  soul  is  full  of  trou- 
ble," and  strike  out  the  particle  "  but,"  and  proceed, 
"  0  merciful  God,"  &c. 

36.  A  ibrm  of  prayer  and  visitation  of  prisoners 
for  notorious  crimes,  and  especially  |)ersons  under 
sentence  of  death,  being  much  wanted ,  the  form  en- 
titled "  prayers  for  persons  under  sentence  of  death, 
agreed  on  in  the  synod  of  the  archbishops  and  bish- 
ops, and  the  rest  of  the  clergy  of  Ireland,  at  Dublin, 
in  the  year  1711,^^  as  it  now  stands  in  the  book  of 
Common  Prayer  of  the  chni'ch  of  Ireland,  is  agreed 
upon,  and  ordered  to  be  adopted,  with  the  following 
alterations:  viz: 

For  the  absolution,  take  the  same  declaration  of 
forgiveness,  or  either  of  the  collects  above  directed 
for  the  visitation  of  the  sick.  The  short  collect  "  0 
Saviour  of  the  world,"  &:c.  to  be  left  out;  and  for  the 
word  "frailness,"  say  "frailty." 

37.  In  the  catechism,  besides  the  alteration  re- 
specting civil  rulers,  alter  as  follows:  viz.  "  fVhat  is 
your  name?  JV.  M.  When  did  you  receive  this  name? 
I  received  it  in  baptism,  ivhereby  I  became  a  member 
of  the  chiistian  church.  What  was  pomisedfor  you 
in  baptism?  That  I  should  be  instructed  to  believe  the 


464 

christian  faith,  as  contained  in  the  apostle's  creed,  and 
to  obey  God's  holy  ivill,  and  keep  his  commandments. 

Dost  thou  think  thou  art  bound  to  believe  all  the 
articles  of  the  christian  faith,  as  contained  in  the 
creed,  and  to  obey  God's  holy  will  and  keep  his  com- 
mandments? Yes  verily,"  ^c. 

Instead  of  the  words  "  verily,  and  indeed  taken," 
say — "spiritually  taken." 

Answer  to  the  question  "  How  many  sacraments? 
Two,  baptism'  and  the  Lord's  supper." 

38.  Instead  of  a  particular  service  for  the  church- 
ing of  women,  and  psalms,  the  followins;  special 
prayer  is  to  be  introduced,  after  the  general  thanks- 
giving: viz.  This  to  be  said,  when  any  woman  de- 
sires to  return  thanks.  "O  Almighty  God,  we  give  thee 
most  humble  and  hearty  thanks,  for  that  thou  hast 
been  graciously  pleased  to  preserve  this  woman,  thy 
servant,  through  the  great  pains  and.  perils  of  cnild- 
hirth.  Incline  her,  we  beseech  thee,  to  show  forth  her 
thankfulness,  for  this  thy  great  mercy,  not  only  with 
her  lips,  but  by  a  lioly  and  virtuous  life.  Be  pleased, 
O  God,  so  to  establish  her  health,  that  she  may  lead 
the  remainder  of  her  days  to  thy  honour  and  glory, 
through  Jesus  Christ,  our  Lord.     Amen." 

39.  The  commination  office  for  Ash  Wednesday 
to  be  discontinued,  and  therefore  the  thiee  collects, 
the  first  beginning — "  O  Lord,  we  beseech  tliee," — 
2d,  "  0  most  mighty  God," —  3d,  "  Turn  us,  O  good 
Lord,"  shall  be  continued  among  the  occasional 
prayers;  and  used  after  the  collect  on  Ash  Wedues- 


465 

day,  and  on  such  other  occasions  as  tiie  minister 
shall  tliink  fit. 

Articles  of  Religion. 
1.  Of  Faith  in  the  Holy  Tiinity. 
There  is  but  one  living,  true,  and  eternal  God, 
the  Father  Almighty;  without  body,  parts  or  passions; 
of  infinite  power,  wisdom  and  goodness;  the  maker 
and  preserver  of  all  things  both  visible  and  invisible: 
and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  son  of  God,  begotten  of 
the  fatlier  before  all  worlds,  very  and  true  God;  who 
came  down  from  heaven,  took  man's  nature  in  the 
womb  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  of  her  substance,  and 
was  God  and  man  in  one  person,  whereof  is  one 
Christ;  who  truly  suffered,  was  crucified,  dead  and 
buried,  to  reconcile  his  Father  to  us,  and  to  be  a  sa- 
crifice for  the  sins  of  all  men;  he  arose  again  from 
death,  ascended  into  heaven,  and  there  sitteth  until 
he  shall  return  to  judge  the  world  at  the  last  day: 
and  one  holy  spirit,  the  Lord  and  giver  of  life,  of  the 
same  divine  nature  with  the  Father  and  the  Son. 

2.  Of  the  sufficiency  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  for 
Salvation. 

Holy  scripture  containeth  all  things  necessary  to 
salvation:  so  that  whatsoever  is  not  read  therein,  nor 
may  be  proved  thereby,  is  not  to  be  required  of  any 
man,  that  it  should  be  believed  as  an  article  of  the 
faith,  or  be  thought  requisite  or  necessary  to  salva- 
tion. In  the  name  of  the  holy  scripture  we  do  un- 
derstand those  canonical  books  of  the  Old  and  New 

3  N 


466 

Testament,  of  whose  authority  was  never  any  doubt 
in  the  church. 

Of  the  names  and  numbers  of  the  canonical  Books. 

Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers,  Deuter- 
onomy, Joshua,  Judges,  Ruth,  The  1  Book  of  Samu- 
el, The  2  Book  of  Samuel,  The  1  Book  of  Kings, 
The  2  book  of  Kings,  The  1  Book  of  Chronicles, 
The  2  Book  of  Chronicles,  The  1  Book  of  Esdras, 
The  2  Book  of  Esdras,  The  Book  of  Hester,  The 
Book  of  Job,  The  Psalms,  The  Proverbs,  Ecclesi- 
astes  or  Preacher,  Cantica  or  Songs  of  Solomon, 
4  Prophets  the  greater,   12  Prophets  the  less. 

And  the  other  books  (as  Hierome  saith)  the 
church  doth  read  for  example  of  life,  and  instruction 
of  manners;  but  yet  doth  it  not  apply  them  to  es- 
tablish any  doctrine;  such  are  these  following: 

The  3  Book  of  Esdras,  The  4  Book  of  Esdras, 
The  Book  of  Tobias,  The  Book  of  Judith,  The  rest 
of  the  Book  of  Hester,  The  Book  of  Wisdom,  Jesus 
the  Son  of  Sirach,  Baruch  the  Prophet,  The  Song 
of  the  three  Children,  The  Story  of  Susanna,  Of 
Bell  and  the  Dragon,  The  Prayer  of  Manasses,  The 
1  Book  of  Maccabees,  The  2  Book  of  Maccabees. 

All  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  as  they 
are  commonly  received,  we  do  receive  and  account 
canonical. 

3.  Of  the  Old  and  Keio  Testament. 

There  is  a  perfect  harmony  and  agreement  be- 
tween the  Old  Testament  and  the  New;  for  in  both, 
everlasting  life  is  offered  to  mankind  by  Christ,  who 


467 

is  the  only  mediator  between  God  and  man:  and 
although  the  law  given  by  Moses,  as  to  ceremonies 
and  the  civil  precepts  of  it,  doth  not  bind  christians; 
yet  all  such  are  obliged  to  observe  the  moral  com- 
mandments which  he  delivered. 

4.  Of  the  Creed. 

The  creed,  commonly  called  the  Apostles  creed, 
ought  to  be  received  and  believed:  because  it  may  be 
proved  by  the  holy  scripture. 

5.  Of  Oiiginal  Sin. 

By  the  fall  of  Adam,  the  nature  of  man  is  be- 
come greatly  corrupted,  having  departed  from  its 
primitive  innocence,  and  that  original  righteousness 
in  which  it  was  at  first  created  by  God.  For  we 
are  now  so  inclined  naturally  to  do  evil,  that  the  flesh 
is  continually  striving  to  act  contrary  to  the  spirit  of 
God:  which  corrupt  inclination  still  remains  even  in 
the  regenerate.  But  although  there  is  no  man  living 
who  sinneth  not,  yet  we  must  use  our  sincere  en- 
deavours to  keep  the  whole  law  of  God,  so  far  as  we 
possibly  can. 

6.  Of  Free-mil 

The  condition  of  man,  after  the  fall  of  •3£?«m,  is 
such,  that  he  cannot  turn  and  prepare  himself,  by  his 
own  natural  strength  and  good  works,  to  faith,  and 
calling  upon  God:  wherefore  we  have  no  power  to 
do  good  works,  pleasing  and  acceptable  to  God,  with- 
out the  grace  of  God  by  Christ  giving  a  good  will, 
and  working  with  us,  when  we  have  that  good  will. 


468 

7.  Of  the  Justification  of  Man. 
We  are  accounted  righteous  before  God,  only  for 
the  merit  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  by 
faith;  and  not  for  our  own  works  or  deservings. 
Wherefore,  that  we  are  justified  by  faith  only,  is  a 
most  wholesome  doctrine,  and  very  full  of  comfort. 

8.  Of  Good  Works. 
Although  good  works,  which  are  the  fruits  of 
faith,  and  follow  after  justification,  cannot  put  away 
our  sins,  and  endure  the  severity  of  God's  judgment; 
yet  are  they  pleasing  and  acceptable  to  God  in  Christ, 
and  do  spring  out  necessarily  of  a  true  and  lively 
faith;  insomuch  that  by  them  a  lively  faith  may  be 
as  evidently  known,  as  a  tree  discerned  by  the  fruit. 

9.  Of  Christ  alone  without  Sin. 

Christ,  by  taking  human  nature  on  him,  was 
made  like  unto  us  in  all  things,  sin  only  excepted. 
He  was  a  lamb  without  spot,  and  by  the  sacrifice  of 
himself  once  offered,  made  atonement  and  propitia- 
tion for  the  sins  of  the  world;  and  sin  was  not  in 
him.  But  all  mankind  besides,  although  baptized 
and  born  again  in  Christ,  do  offend  in  many  things. 
For  if  we  say  we  have  no  sin,  we  deceive  ourselves, 
and  the  truth  is  not  in  us. 

10.  Of  Sin  after  Baptism. 
They  who  fall  into  sin  after  baptism  may  be  re- 
newed by  repentance:  for  although  after  we  have  re- 
ceived God's  grace,  we  may  depart  from  it  by  falling 
into  sin;  yet,  through  the  assistance  of  his  holy  spirit. 


469 

we  may  by  repentance  and  the  amendment  of  our 
lives,  be  restored  again  to  his  favour.  God  will  not 
deny  forgiveness  of"  sins  to  those  who  truly  repent, 
and  do  that  which  is  lawful  and  right;  but  all  such 
through  his  mercy  in  Christ  Jesus,  shall  save  their 
souls  alive. 

11.0/*  Predestinaticni. 

Predestination  to  life,  with  respect  to  every  man^s 
salvation,  is  the  everlasting  purpose  of  God,  secret 
to  us:  and  the  right  knowledge  of  what  is  revealed 
concerning  it,  is  full  of  comfort  to  such  truly  religious 
christians,  as  feel  in  themselves  the  spirit  of  Christ, 
mortifying  the  works  of  their  flesh  and  earthly  affec- 
tions, and  raising  their  minds  to  heavenly  things. 
But  we  must  receive  God's  promises  as  they  are 
generally  declared  in  holy  scripture,  and  do  his  will, 
as  therein  is  expressly  directed:  for  without  holiness 
of  life  no  ujan  shall  be  saved. 

12.  Of  Obtaining  eternal  Salvation  only  by  the  name 
of  Christ. 

They  are  to  be  accounted  presumptuous,  who 
say,  that  every  man  shall  be  saved  by  the  law  or  sect 
which  he  professeth,  so  that  he  be  diligent  to  frame 
his  life  according  to  that  law,  and  the  light  of  nature. 
For  holy  scripture  doth  set  out  unto  us  only  the 
Bame  of  Jesus  Christ,  whereby  men  must  be  saved. 

13.  Of  the  Church  and  its  Authority. 

The  visible  church  of  Christ  is  a  congregation  of 
faithful  men,  Avherein  the  true  word  of  God  is  preach- 


470 

ed  and  the  sacraments  are  duly  administered,  accord- 
ing to  Christ's  ordinance  in  all  things  requisite  and 
necessary:  and  every  church  hath  power  to  ordain, 
change,  and  abolish  rites  and  ceremonies,  for  the 
more  decent  order  and  good  government  thereof;  so 
that  all  things  be  done  to  editying.  But  it  is  not  law- 
ful for  the  church  to  ordain  any  thing  contrary  to 
God's  word,  nor  so  to  expound  the  scripture,  as  to 
make  one  part  seem  repugnant  to  another;  nor  to 
decree  or  enforce  any  thing  to  be  believed  as  neces- 
sary to  salvation,  that  is  not  contained  in  the  scrip- 
tures. General  councils  and  churches  are  liable  to 
err,  and  have  erred,  even  in  matters  of  faith  and 
doctrine,  as  well  as  in  their  ceremonies. 

1 4.  O/*  Ministering  in  the  Congregation. 
It  is  not  lawful  for  any  man  to  take  upon  him 
the  office  of  pubHc  preaching,  or  ministering  the  sa- 
craments in  the  congregation,  before  he  be  lawfully 
called,  and  sent  to  execute  the  same.  And  those  we 
ought  to  judge  lawfully  called  and  sent,  who  are 
chosen  and  called  to  this  work  by  men  who  have 
public  authority  given  unto  them  in  the  congregation, 
to  call  and  send  ministers  into  the  Lord's  vineyard. 

\5.  Of  the  Sacraments 

Sacraments  ordained  by  Christ  are  not  merely 
badges  or  tokens  of  christian  men's  profession;  but 
rather  certain  sure  wPAiesses,  and  effectual  signs  of 
grace,  and  God's  good  will  towards  us,  by  which  he 
doth  work  invisibly  in  us,  and  doth  not  only  quicken, 
but  also  strengthen  and  confirai  our  faith  in  him. 


471 

There  are  two  sacraments  ordained  by  Christ 
our  Lord  in  the  gospel,  that  is  to  say,  baptism,  and 
the  supper  of  the  Lord. 

16.  Of  Bapi\sm. 
Baptism  is  not  merely  a  sign  of  profession,  and 
mark  of  difference,  whereby  christian  men  are  dis- 
cerned from  others  that  are  not  christened;  but  it  is 
also  a  sign  of  regeneration,  or  new  birth,  whereby, 
as  by  an  instrument,  they  who  receive  baptism  rightly 
are  grafted  into  the  church;  the  promises  of  the  Ibr- 
giveness  of  sin,  and  of  our  adoption  to  be  the  sons 
of  God  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  are  visibly  signed  and 
sealed;  faith  is  confirmed,  and  grace  increased  by 
virtue  of  prayer  unto  God.  The  baptism  of  young 
children  is  in  any  wise  to  be  retained  in  the  church, 
as  most  agreeable  to  the  institution  of  Christ. 

17.  Of  the  Loi'd's  Supper. 

The  supper  of  the  Lord  is  not  merely  a  sign  of 
the  love  that  christians  ought  to  have  among  them- 
selves one  to  another;  but  rather  is  a  sacrament  of 
our  redemption  by  Christ's  death:  insomuch  that  to 
such  as  rightly,  worthily,  and  with  faith  receive  the 
same,  the  bread  which  we  break,  is  a  partaking  of 
the  body  of  Christ,  and  likewise  the  cup  of  blessing, 
is  a  partaking  of  the  blood  of  Christ. 

Transubstt.ntiation  (or  the  change  of  the  sub- 
stance of  bread  and  wine)  in  the  supper  of  the  Lord, 
cannot  be  proved  by  holy  writ:  but  is  repugnant  to 
the  plain  words  of  scripture,  overthroweth  the  nature 


472 

of  a  sacrament,  and  hath  given  occasion  to  many 
superstitions. 

The  body  of  Christ  is  given,  taken,  and  eaten  in 
the  supper  of  the  Lord,  only  after  an  heavenly  and 
spiritual  manner.  And  the  mean  whereby  the  body 
of  Christ  is  received  and  eaten  in  the  supper,  is 
faith. 

IS.  Of  the  one  oblation  of  Christ  upon  tJie  cross. 

The  offering  of  Christ  once  made,  is  that  perfect 
redemption,  propitiation,  and  satisfaction  for  all  the 
sins  of  the  whole  world,  both  original  and  actual: 
and  there  is  none  other  satisfaction  for  sin,  but  that 
alone. 

19.  Of  Consecration  and  Oidination. 

The  book  of  consecration  of  bishops  and  ordering 
of  priests  and  deacons,  excepting  such  parts  as  re- 
quire any  oaths  inconsistent  with  the  American  revo- 
lution, is  to  be  adopted,  as  containing  all  things  ne- 
cessary to  such  consecration  and  ordering. 

20.  Of  a  Christian  Man's  Oath. 

The  christian  religion  doth  not  prohibit  any  man 
from  taking  an  oath,  when  required  by  the  magistrate 
in  testimony  of  truth;  but  all  vain  and  rash  swearing 
is  forbidden  by  the  holy  scriptures. 

Ordered,  that  the  plan  for  obtaming  consecra- 
tion, be  again  read:  which  being  done,  the  same  was 
agreed  to,  and  is  as  follows: 

[The  plan  follows  in  the  instrument,  but  is  here 
omitted,  because  given  in  No.  5.  p.  353.] 


473 

Done  in  Philadelphia,  Christ  church,  in  conven- 
tion of  the  clerical  and  lay  deputies  of  tlie  protestant 
episcopal  church  in  the  states  under-mentioned,  this 
5th  day  of  October,  1785.  (Signed  by  the  president, 
and  all  the  members  of  the  convention,  ranged  ac- 
cording to  their  respective  states:  as  was  also  the 
address  to  the  English  prelates,  published  in  the 
jomnalof  1786.) 

Extracts  from  the  Jommal. 

Resolved,  That  the  liturgy  shall  be  used  in  this 
church  as  accommodated  to  the  revolution,  agreeably 
to  the  alterations  now  approved  of  and  ratified  by 
this  convention. 

On  motion.  Resolved,  That  the  fourth  of  July 
shall  be  obsened  by  this  church  for  ever,  as  a  day 
of  thanksgiving  to  Almighty  God,  for  the  inestimable 
blessings  of  religious  and  civil  liberty  vouchsafed  to 
the  United  States  of  America. 

On  motion.  Resolved,  That  the  first  Thursday  in 
November  in  every  year  for  ever,  shall  be  observed 
by  this  church  as  a  day  of  general  thanksgiving  to 
Almighty  God,  for  the  fruits  of  the  earth,  and  for  all 
the  other  blessings  of  his  merciful  providence.* 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  be  appointed  to  pub- 
lish the  book  of  Common  Prayer  with  the  alterations, 
as  well  as  those  now  ratified,  in  order  to  render  the 
liturgy  consistent  with  the  American  revolution,  and 
the  constitutions  of  the  respective  states,  as  the  al- 
terations  and    new    offices   recommended   to   this 

*  The  preparing  of  a  suitable  service,  was  left  to  the  committee. 

3o 


474 

church;  and  that  the  book  be  accompanied  with  a 
proper  preface  or  address,  setting  forth  the  reason 
and  expediency  of  the  alterations;  and  that  the  com- 
mittee have  the  hberty  to  make  verbal  and  gram- 
matical corrections;  but  in  such  manner,  as  that  no- 
thing in  form  or  substance  be  altered. 

The  committee  appointed  were  the  Rev.  Dr. 
White,  (President)  the  Rev.  Dr.  Smith,  and  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Wharton. 

Ordered,  That  the  said  committee  be  authorised 
to  dispose  of  the  copies  of  the  Common  Prayer  when 
printed;  and  that  after  defraying  all  expenses  incur- 
red therein,  they  remit  the  nett  profits  to  the  trea- 
surers of  the  several  corporations  and  societies  for 
the  relief  of  the  widows  and  children  of  deceased 
clergymen  in  the  states  represented  in  this  conven- 
tion ;  the  profits  to  be  equally  divided  among  the  said 
societies  and  corporations. 

Resolved,  l^hat  the  same  committee  be  authorised 
to  publish,  with  the  book  of  Common  Prayer,  such 
of  the  reading  and  singing  psalms,  and  such  a  kal- 
eiidar  of  proper  lessons  for  the  different  Sundays 
and  holydays  throughout  the  year,  as  they  may  think 
proper. 


LATELY  PUBLISHED,  AND  FOR  SALE  BY 

S.  Potter  <^  Co. 

JVo.  55,  CHESJ^UT STREET. 

EPISCOPAL  MAGAZINE,  in  monthly  numbers  of  32  pages 
each,  at  250  cents  per  annum  The  fifth  No.  of  the  above 
work  is  this  day  published,  whicii,  together  with  the  pre- 
ceding Nos,  may  be  had  of  the  publishers. 

BEAN'S  FAMILY  WORSHIP,  being  a  course  of  Morning  and 
Evening  Prayers  for  every  day  in  the  month.  To  which  is 
prefixed,  a  Discoujse  on  Family  Religion.  By  James  Bean. 
First  American  from  the  twelfth  London  edition,  carefully 
revised  and  adapted  to  the  use  of  Christians  in  the  United 
States. 

FROM  THE   CHRISTIAN  OBSERVER. 

"  We  are  glad  to  hare  an  opportunity  of  introducing  Beanos  Family  Worship 
to  such  of  our  readers  as  may  be  unacquainted  with  it.  It  is  a  work,  which,  while 
it  conveys  just  and  scriptural  views  of  the  momentous  truths  of  Christianity,  it 
well  adapted  to  promote  the  cultivation  of  bright  affections  towards  God  and  man, 
and  of  a  holy,  devout  and  spiritual  frame  of  mind.  We  particularly  recommend 
the  discourse  on  Family  Religion  to  the  serious  attention  of  all,  who  are  either 
negligent  in  the  performance  of  its  essential  duties,  or  anxious  to  obtain  farther 
information  respecting  them." 

SACRA  PRIVATA,  the  private  meditations  and  prayers  of  the 

Right  Rev.  Thomas  Wilson,  D.  D.  Lord  Bishop  of  Sodor  and 

Man,  accommodated  to  general  use. 

"  In  the  Prayers  of  Bishop  Wilson  (say  the  editors  of  the  Christian  Journal,) 
we  meet  with  the  purest  sentiments  of  Christianity;  and  his  Sacra  Privala  bear 
ample  testimony  of  his  uniform  piety  and  the  excellency  of  his  understanding." 

A  BOOK  OF  CHANTS,  of  the  morning  and  evening  prayer, 
and  communion  service,  of  the  protestant  episcopal  church 
in  the  United  States  of  America. 

OBSERVATIONS  ON  THE  CONVERSION  AND  APOS- 
TLE SHIP  OF  ST.  PAUL.  By  the  Hon.  George  Lyttle- 
ton,  esq. 

A  FAMILIAR  EXPOSITION  OF  THE  CHURCH  CATE- 
CHISM,  in  Five  Parts.     To  which  are  added,  prayers  for 
the  use  of  parents  and  children.     By  Isaac  Mann,  D.  D. 
Bishop  of  Cork  and  Ross. 


THE  CATECHISM  OF  THE  PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL 
CHURCH  in  the  United  States  of  America.  To  which  is 
annexed,  a  Catechism,  designed  as  an  explanation  and  en- 
largement of  the  church  Catechism,  with  suitable  prayers. 

A  COMMON  PLACE  BOOK,  upon  the  plan  recommended  and 
used  by  the  celebrated  John  Locke,  esq. 

Id  a  letter  to  M.  Toignard,  be  says,  "  There  is  no  need  I  should  tell  you  of 
what  iniiDite  service  I  have  found  the  above  book,  after  five  and  twenty  years  ex- 
perience." 

TRIAL  OF  EPISCOPACY,  Reported  by  R.  C.  C.  A.  M. 

COMPARATIVE  VIEWS  of  the  controversy  between  the 
Calvinists  and  Arminians.  By  William  White,  D.  D.  bish- 
op of  the  protestant  episcopal  church  in  the  commonwealth 
of  Pennsylvania,  in  2  vols.  8  vo. 

LECTURES  ON  THE  CATECHISM  of  the  protestant  epis- 
copal church,  with  supplementary  lectures:  one  on  the  mi- 
nistry, the  other  on  the  public  service,  and  dissertations  on 
select  subjects  in  the  lectures.  By  William  White,  D.  D. 
bishop  of  the  protestant  episcopal  church  in  the  common- 
wealth of  Pennsylvania,  in  1  vol.  8  vo. 

AN  ESSAY  containing  objections  against  the  position  of  a  per- 
sonal assurance  of  the  pardon  of  sin,  by  a  direct  communi- 
cation of  the  holy  spirit,  with  notes,  occasioned  by  a  pam- 
phlet containing  remarks  on  the  essay,  under  the  name  of 
"  A  Reply."  By  Wm.  White,  D.  D.  bishop  of  the  protestant 
episcopal  church  in  the  commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania. 

REVIEW  of  the  question  of  a  personal  assurance  of  pardon  of 
sin,  by  a  direct  communication  of  the  Holy  Spii  it;  in  an  essay 
and  notes  on  the  subject,  and  in  a  reply  and  a  farther  reply 
to  the  same;  the  two  last  being  under  the  signature  of  John 
Emory,  a  minister  of  the  gospel,  of  the  methodist  episcopal 
church,  with  an  Appendix  on  the  notice  of  the  subject,  in 
the  Quarterly  Review,  by  the  Rev.  E.  S.  Ely,  A.  M.  By 
William  White,  D.  D.  bishop  of  the  protestant  episcopal 
church  in  the  commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania. 


ffi 


DATE  DUE 

km^^^^W'- 

SH!«-rr»{ 

GAYLORD 

